Is Jesus God?

[kepha31]

Agreed.

My only point is no eyewitnesses ever wrote a word about the man.

So what. That doesn't mean there were no eye witnesses.

Reason is. The legends developed in the Diaspora, not Israel or Galilee, where he would have been viewed as a failed Messiah.

Please define Diaspora, there are so many of them. I can only assume you mean the spread of the Gospel message, initially, throughout the Roman Empire. If you are correct that in the areas of Israel or Galilee in the 1st 3 centuries Jesus was viewed as a failed Messiah, how do you account for the archaeological evidence in the Roman Catacombs?

​

 

[outhouse]

So what. That doesn't mean there were no eye witnesses.

All evidence points away from any possible witnesses.

I can only assume you mean the spread of the Gospel message, initially, throughout the Roman Empire

Sorry you may misunderstand how Christianity evolved.

The gospel message did not initially spread from a central point in Israel. The movement evolved everywhere in the Empire equally. There was no central origin in Israel other then the actual martyrdom after his death. People left Passover and took the message back home in the Diaspora where the mythology and theology had found importance in Hellenistic lives and grew from many different origins.

Literature evolved long after that.

how do you account for the archaeological evidence in the Roman Catacombs?

So your saying how does evidence found in the Diaspora effect his failed messiah status in cultural Judaism in Israel?

Please rephrase that so it can be understood.

 

[psychoslice]

If you believe there is a God who created us, that brings up a question: "Did he create humans so he could serve them, or did he create humans to serve him?

Well there is no god, so I cannot answer that question.

 

[Kolibri]

Do you understand the difference between Aramaic apocalyptic Judaism, and Hellenistic Judaism?

In short, Hellenistic Judaism is a fusion of Greek culture with Jewish thought. In my opinion, it is a repeat of what the Israelites did with absorbing the culture of the nations around them before the destruction of Solomon's Temple. But in this they were not alone. The Christians too absorbed Greek philosophies w/o restraint once the Twelve and other loyal elders of the 1st Century died off. Both the Hellenistic Jews and apostate Christendom lost a clear focus on the condition of the dead and a hope for an earthly resurrection for the majority of mankind.

Apocalyptic Judaism looks to a messiah to usher in a restoration after some cataclysmic event. On the downside, these ones tend to be more militarist-minded. And some are looking for the messiah to lead them in overthrowing the powers that be.
In contrast, Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 says that God's people would not even be learning war anymore during the "final part of the days", or "in the last days." (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1)

 

[kepha31]

All evidence points away from any possible witnesses.

Sorry you may misunderstand how Christianity evolved.

The gospel message did not initially spread from a central point in Israel. The movement evolved everywhere in the Empire equally. There was no central origin in Israel other then the actual martyrdom after his death. People left Passover and took the message back home in the Diaspora where the mythology and theology had found importance in Hellenistic lives and grew from many different origins.
Literature evolved long after that.

What literature? The canon of the New Testament took nearly 400 years, and their existed a general doctrinal consensus with the ante-Niacaen Fathers right off the bat. So there is lots of literature from which theology developed. Which are you referring to?

So your saying how does evidence found in the Diaspora effect his failed messiah status in cultural Judaism in Israel?

Please rephrase that so it can be understood.

As I understand it, many Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. That does not mean He failed. I am not taking about them. I am talking about the converted Jews who buried the martyrs in the Roman Catacombs, who were killed in the Colosseum in the 2nd century, and arguably in the 1st. You said, "The legends developed in the Diaspora, not Israel or Galilee..." and I replied that no one in their right mind accepts death over a legend, which took place in Rome. If you mean development of doctrine, that's a different discussion. Clarification of the original does not mean changing it, and exactly where this took place is irrelevant. What is relevant is there had to be a centralized system to sort out the perpetual mess, which happened to be in Rome.

The Good Shepherd with a lamb around his shoulders represents Christ and the soul which He has saved. This symbol is often found in the frescoes, in the reliefs of the sarcophagi, in the statues and is often engraved on the tombs.

The early Christians lived in a mainly pagan and hostile society. During Nero's persecution (64 A.D.) their religion was considered "a strange and illegal superstition". The Christians were mistrusted and kept aloof, they were suspected and accused of the worst crimes. They were persecuted, imprisoned, sentenced to exile or condemned to death. Unable to profess their faith openly, the Christians made use of symbols, which they depicted on the walls of the catacombs and, more often, carved them on the marble-slabs which sealed the tombs.

Like the ancient, the Christians were very fond of symbolism. The symbols were a visible reminder of their faith. The term "symbol" refers to a concrete sign or figure, which, according to the author's intention, recalls an idea or a spiritual reality. The main symbols are: the Good Shepherd, the "Orante", the monogram of Christ and the fish.

The Greek letters alpha and omega surround the halo of Jesus in the catacombs of Rome from the 4th century.
The "Alpha and Omega" can only mean that Jesus is God, which the 4rth century Christians believed. Post-reformist cults have no business identifying with the early Church.

If you count Rome as NOT part of the Diaspora, then I stand corrected.


The catacombs of St. Callixtus. Salesian Istitute S.t Callixtus, Rome. The christian catacombs of Rome

 

[katiemygirl]

If Jesus is God, then it is dishonoring to say he isn't. If he isn't, than it is blasphemous to say he is.

You can choose to call it "dishonoring" rather than blaspheming if it makes you feel better.

Tell me Kolibri. Who is Lord of lords in the Bible?

Isn't YHWH Lord of lords in Deut. 10:17?

"For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes."

Yet in the NT (Rev. 17:14), we clearly read that Jesus is Lord of lords.

"They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."

And again in 1 Tim. 6:15,

"Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;"

Who then is the Lord of lords? YHWH or Jesus?

The OT says YHWH is Lord of lords, but the NT claims Jesus is Lord of lords!

Are there two Lord of lords?

Can you not see that the two are ONE?

 

[moorea944]

You can choose to call it "dishonoring" rather than blaspheming if it makes you feel better.

Tell me Kolibri. Who is Lord of lords in the Bible?

Isn't YHWH Lord of lords in Deut. 10:17?

"For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes."

Yet in the NT (Rev. 17:14), we clearly read that Jesus is Lord of lords.

"They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."

And again in 1 Tim. 6:15,

"Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;"

Who then is the Lord of lords? YHWH or Jesus?

The OT says YHWH is Lord of lords, but the NT claims Jesus is Lord of lords!

Are there two Lord of lords?

Can you not see that the two are ONE?

Here are some of the things that most people forget, esp. Trinitarians. God has "given" His son all authority. Jesus can also carry the names of deity. But he isnt God himself. In the OT, God is our saviour, he is our rock, etc.... But now, He has "given" these titles to His son. God works "thru" His son on these matters. And that is exactly what the bible states too. IT DOESNT say that Jesus is Yahweh. What it does say, is Jesus is the Son of God. He is the wisdom and power of God. God is the God and Father of Jesus. God is greater than Jesus. Think about it.....

 

[katiemygirl]

Here are some of the things that most people forget, esp. Trinitarians. God has "given" His son all authority. Jesus can also carry the names of deity. But he isnt God himself. In the OT, God is our saviour, he is our rock, etc.... But now, He has "given" these titles to His son. God works "thru" His son on these matters. And that is exactly what the bible states too. IT DOESNT say that Jesus is Yahweh. What it does say, is Jesus is the Son of God. He is the wisdom and power of God. God is the God and Father of Jesus. God is greater than Jesus. Think about it.....

Good Morning Moore,
Can you please give me the Scripture that says God gave all of the titles you mentioned to His Son? I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.
Katie

 

[It's Ya Girl Jesus' Wife]

Yes. Jesus is God. (John 1:1, John 1:14). He is the Son of God while YHWH is the Father of God. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. All are a part of God. His creation reflects that. Just like husband and wife are one, the Father and the Son are one. The Son just submits to the Father even though they are both God. Wives submit to their husbands even though both sexes are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes. Jesus is God. (John 1:1, John 1:14). He is the Son of God while YHWH is the Father of God. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. All are a part of God. His creation reflects that. Just like husband and wife are one, the Father and the Son are one. The Son just submits to the Father even though they are both God. Wives submit to their husbands even though both sexes are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Amen!
God is a title. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. They are ONE God, and just as you so rightly pointed out, we see this same ONENESS with a husband and wife. The two become ONE. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ONE.

 

[JM2C]

Problem, the Word is THE TRINITARIAN GOD in Trinitarian Theology. Most HE'S in the singular is this same TRINITARIAN GOD. Although some HE'S are the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, God en whole is three HE'S. All three are still the ONE HE, (being).


Yeah I know it sounds contradictory. It is.


Being wholly God without division, except prosopon, still is THE WORD WAS THE GOD. "God" is being interpreted as BEING and the Word, is being interpreted as Christ the prosopon of the Being.

The ONE/ECHAD HE, is the Lord or The One/Echad/Unified LORD is our God/Elohim, and God/Elohim being plural shows that God, i.e., [God/Father, God/Son, God/Holy Spirit described in John 10:30, John 14:16, and Acts 5:3-4] are all ONE/Echad/Unified LORD, that is more than one, yet is "ONE/ECHAD-SH259 United Jehovah/LORD" and this is what Deuteronomy 6:4 in the OT was saying. Hence, we have the Trinity from the OT to the NT.

 

[JM2C]

Amen!

God is a title. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. They are ONE God, and just as you so rightly pointed out, we see this same ONENESS with a husband and wife. The two become ONE. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ONE.

YES, Katie you got it "God is a title".

Before the beginning there was no creation and if there was no creation then there was nothing but God, i.e., God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. There cannot be anything but God before the creation.

 

[JM2C]

The majority of the debate was not if Jesus was divine, but how to define his divinity in relationship to god.

Isn’t that what John 1:1 was saying? “And the Word was God” because He/Word was with God in the beginning or before the creation.

 

[JM2C]

There was no orthodoxy early on. Beliefs were all over the board on how to define him.

It depends on how you define “orthodoxy”. Fifty years after the apostle John’s death, hybridized Christians were as common as semi-christian sect today, but the seed or the gospel of John were planted already before his death, and some heretics like Marcion challenged the apostle’s writing and still going on today.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Unsubstantiated, this thread requires more then opinion.

The Greek translators had already substantiated the difference when they carefully chose to call Jesus "Theos" and not "TON THEON".
And it's not my opinion because I did not write the Greek translation of John 1:1; they did. I simply use my eyes to read that there is never a TON THEON attributed to Jesus Christ. There is no opinion on what TON THEON means and Greek translators correctly translate it into English to mean "The God". You're confusing opinion with fact.

They also called the emperor son of god, before jesus was even born. Its also unlikely Jesus ever uttered that phrase. But the same Hellenist who used to worship the Emperor, as "son of god" are the same people that called Jesus "son of god" as only Hellenist were the authors of all of the NT

So what. Delusional people did existed in ancient times as they do today. Their delusions and deceptions does not drown out the truth on what came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ himself. He said that he was the Son of God and a god. He said that; I didn't. I simply echoed the message in clarity. But don't take my word for it. Let me post his own words again:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (THEOI)
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:33-36)

Jesus Christ's own disciples called him the Son of God. Other people called him the Son of God.
But unlike other emperors of the world, Satan called Jesus the Son of God. Demons called him the Son of God. And YAHWEH, The God (TON THEON) called him the Son of God. (I'm just saying.)

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Only if you have a very narrow view of early Christianity and lack of education on most of the early church fathers.

If I had a narrow view of early Christianity and accept the Trinity like some Christians do; then I would logically discard other conflicting verses in the much older Scriptures such as:

1. "I [am] the [YAHWEH] thy God,...Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:2-3 KJV)
2. Hear Israel: YAHWEH is our God, YAHWEH is one (Deuteronomy 6:4)
3. I am YAHWEH. That is my name! And my glory will I not give to another; neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)​

I and other sons of Israel can safely stand before God and His son Jesus Christ and declare that they have changed their minds hundreds of years later and are thus become double-minded. Satan would say "I told you so!" However, I am confident that I and millions of other believers of monotheism will never have to face such a confrontation. Because we clearly understand that there is no Trinity, Duality, or Polytheism when it comes to YAHWEH, The God (TON THEON). Let's not forget that some early church fathers were anti-Semitic and hated some of God's commandments with a passion. They share the same passion as demons did and do to this very day.

I rest on the fact that the New Testament agrees and is in harmony with the Torah, The Prophets, and the Writings (aka "Old" Testament). I rest on this fact:

"For I [am] YAHWEH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Ya'ocob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)​

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Questions for you guys. How would it be belittling Jesus, if He was not God? Can Jesus still do the things He did before if He was not God? What does His divinity have anything to do with His ability to save Christians? Since He IS doing everything from His Father's Will (His Words, not mine: John 5:30), why would it matter if He were God the Father or God the Son? Does it make a difference, guys? How? and Why?

It makes a huge difference! It make YAHWEH, God the Father out to be a big liar! Because he said:

1. "I [am] the YAHWEH thy God,...Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:2-3 KJV)
2. Hear Israel: YAHWEH is our God, YAHWEH is one (Deuteronomy 6:4)
3. I am YAHWEH. That is my name! And my glory will I not give to another; neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
4. "For I [am] YAHWEH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Ya'ocob (Jacob) are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

Preaching and declaring that YAHWEH "The God" (Ton Theon), "The Father" is ONE for the first 4,000 years to the world; and then forcefully changing their mind from one God to three gods is a big slap in the face to the sons of Jacob because their strong loyalty to the truths in the Torah. The Trinity doctrine is confusion and a ancient strategic plan of the Devil himself: If I can't get them to worship other gods then I will tempt them to worship the Son of God as the God Father.

 

[outhouse]

In short, Hellenistic Judaism is a fusion of Greek culture with Jewish thought

Yes. In short.

But the levels of Judaism could be almost non existent in the Hellenist. It was not full on Judaism. They mirrored Proselytes as most were.

In my opinion, it is a repeat of what the Israelites did with absorbing the culture of the nations around them before the destruction of Solomon's Temple

No, most Israelites were against Hellenism, as they were perverting the religion. They were creating Judaism light, because they did not want to follow all the traditional customs.

The rich Israelites embraced Hellenism, but these were a very small percentage. It gave them the best chance at educations for their family, and a better life.

The Christians too absorbed Greek philosophies w/o restraint once the Twelve and other loyal elders of the 1st Century died off.

No.

The early movement was born from Hellenism. The 12 is probably mythology. His inner circle has historicity but they are portrayed as cowards who fled and denied him at arrest and death.

The movement was Hellenistic from his death on. Not after Galileans died off.

Apocalyptic Judaism looks to a messiah to usher in a restoration after some cataclysmic event

John and Jesus were both apocalyptic Jews.

On the downside, these ones tend to be more militarist-minded. And some are looking for the messiah to lead them in overthrowing the powers that be.

What do you think Jesus was doing in the temple trying to overthrow the corrupt government by himself?

 

[outhouse]

Isn’t that what John 1:1 was saying?

We really don't care historically speaking about the communities work that produced the book attributed to John.

You need to ask yourself why Marks original gospel before the ending was added later, was so vague about Jesus relationship to god, being it was the first gospel the others plagiarized.

 

[outhouse]

It depends on how you define “orthodoxy”. Fifty years after the apostle John’s death, hybridized Christians were as common as semi-christian sect today, but the seed or the gospel of John were planted already before his death, and some heretics like Marcion challenged the apostle’s writing and still going on today.

It does not matter how you define it. There was no orthodoxy early on.

There is a reason it took 300 years to create a canon.