Jesus as Christ

[Trailblazer]

That is why *testing* is also required. Challenge the ideas with further observation.

When it comes to God and religion, I don't know what you think you can observe?

The method of reason *alone* is very untrustworthy since there are many views that are *logically* consistent but simply false. For example, the ancients believed that heavier things fall faster than light things. They concluded this through reason, but they were still wrong.

What is required is a combination of the senses (observation) and reason (hypothesis making and testing). neither alone is good enough.

As that chapter says, reason is not a reliable method for discovering truth about God. Since people all reason differently opinions differ greatly and opinions are contradictory and change over time.

I reject tradition as a means to find truth. The simple fact that many have believed an idea is not enough to establish it as true. That is required is that the idea be *tested*: challenged to see where and how it *breaks*. Only after many successful attempts to break it without doing so can it be held in confidence. Traditional doesn't do this testing and isn't thereby a method of finding truth.

I agree. As that chapter says, tradition is not a reliable method because the the religious traditions such as are recorded in the Bible are understood by the reason, which is fallible.

I do not know how you think a religious belief can be *tested* and challenged to see where and how it *breaks*.

And this also I reject as completely unreliable. First, the mere existence of the 'Holy Spirit' cannot be demonstrated or tested. Second, the variety of opinions on the matter shows that whatever methods have been used cannot be trusted. This is ultimately because they cannot be tested through observation.

Even if there is a Holy Spirit, the method of being guided by the Holy Spirit is problematic because people can *imagine* they are being guided but hat can never be proven. Moreover, if Christians who claim to be guided are saying contradictory things, that would have to men that all of them are not guided since God would not contradict Himself.

See above concerning the first point. Both observation and testing of ideas are required. But all valid knowledge ultimately comes from observation.

And 2 is *precisely* why the beliefs in God are unreliable. Since there is no possible observation, there is no way to test and challenge the ideas. That means they are always subject to error and personal bias.

I see you just answered the questions I asked above. There is no possible observation and there is no way to test and challenge religious ideas. That all depends upon what you expect to observe. Of course you cannot observe God, and you cannot even observe the Messengers of God, unless you live in the times when thye walked the earth, but you can observe what they did on their mission and what they wrote by reading.

You are correct that religious beliefs are always subject to error and personal bias, but that does not mean that a religious belief cannot be true, it just means you have to have a method of determining that which is unbiased and leads to the truth.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes, according to a book that appears to be exaggerated, mythologized, or fictional. That is the entire point. By your reasoning, I should also believe that dragons exist because there are ancient stories recorded about dragons, written by people who at the time of writing believed that dragons existed. You and I aren't convinced dragons exist, for the same reason I'm not convinced Jesus was the son of a god.

Who ever convinced you that the Bible was similar to mythology, fictional or exaggerated? Supernatural, yes because God is that awesome.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I worship God, not Jesus. Jesus was not God so Jesus did not want to be worshiped as God.

He did and does.
He has never once chastised me for worshiping him.

 

[Trailblazer]

It appears that he does seem to imply that rather heavily in John.

It all depends upon how you interpret the verses in John. Everything is subject to interpretation.

I believe that Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same because whatever pertained to Jesus, all His acts and doings, were identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh. God cannot become flesh because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[ElishaElijah]

He did and does.
He has never once chastised me for worshiping him.

Me neither, nor anyone else for that matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for the reply!

The New Testament contains the claim that Jesus was a man sent by God. It is not the evidence, like the Odyssey itself is not evidence of sirens, sea serpents, or the Greek pantheon. If I say I have a pet dragon, that is a claim, and the claim is not evidence of itself being true.

Evidence of Jesus' divinity would be something we can observe in our objective shared reality, outside of the NT, which specifically and reliably corresponds to these claims. Evidence corresponds to reality, rather than being merely a conceptual narrative we can think about or a post hoc rationalization that is consistent with a claim. As far as I'm aware, there is no such evidence.

I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately the NT is the only evidence we have that Jesus existed and did and said what was attributed to Him. The NT contains the claim but it also doubles as the evidence because if what is contained in the NT is true, or even if some of it is true, it is the evidence that supports the claim.

I do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate, but rather he was a Manifestation of God. That belief is is derived from my religion and confirmed in the NT if it is interpreted properly.

That Jesus was a man sent by God can never be proven because God cannot be proven to exist, so that belief has to be taken on faith. However, it should be a reason-based faith, based upon the evidence we have.

I was never a Christian, I was raised with no belief in God. My parents were fallen away Christians. My father became an atheist but my mother retained a belief in God, but I was not raised believing in God and do not recall believing in God until I became a Bahai during my first year of college. I cannot say that I would have ever believed in Jesus based solely on the NT but that is not how I came to believe in Jesus. I have been a Baha'i for about 51 years and I never read one page of the Bible until about nine years ago. What confirms the existence of Jesus and the significance of his mission for me is contained in the Baha'i Writings.

 

[blü 2]

To suggest that there is no description of a Jewish Messiah that is applicable to Jesus is ridiculous. I've listed the 52 various prophecies to Jesus as the 'suffering servant' many times on this site, and am happy to do so again.

As I said, the 'Suffering Servant' is the nation of Israel. It is NOT Jesus ─ that's all Christian retrofit. Ask any Jewish scholar or any of the many non-tendentious Christian scholars.

In exact the same way, Jesus is not the "Immanuel" of Isaiah 7:14. You only have to read on in that chapter to see that the child referred to is born and becomes the regional king.

And of course if there's one thing the God of the Tanakh is not, it's triune.

But let's take one as an example, Isaiah 61:1-3, which was used by Jesus himself in the synagogue in Nazareth to announce the beginning of his ministry [Luke 4].

That's simply the author of Luke bringing in parts of the Tanakh that he likes to think can be applied to Jesus.

Right from the first gospel, Mark, the practice of forming the story around episodes in the Tanakh that appeal to the author as "messianic prophecies" is obvious. The most blatant examples are probably those found in Matthew, who, for example:

─ makes Mary a virgin because the Septuagint translates Isaiah 7:14's 'almah 'young woman' as Greek parthenos 'virgin' (even though, as I said, the young lady's son can't be Jesus if you read the chapter) and even though the authors of Mark and John either haven't heard of it or reject it)

─ invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2

─ invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1

─ absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9

And do you really think his zombies (Matthew 27:52-53) romped through the streets of Jerusalem and no one else in history noticed such an extraordinary event, not even the other gospel authors?

The title 'Christ' (Christos) means 'anointed', and is equivalent to the Hebrew masiah.

Yes, anointed by the Jewish priesthood, and there's no sense in which Jesus qualified, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish nation.

And I'm looking forward to your explaining to me why the God of the Jews generated two millennia of often murderous Christian antisemitism through Jesus, while having no similar argument with Rome who then ruled the Jewish nation and ignoring much of Europe and all of Africa, India, Asia, the Americas, and Australia altogether.

So who is the judge? Surely only God has the omniscience to pronounce judgement? So why is Jesus made judge if he does not carry the authority of God Himself?

To carry the authority of the boss is not to be the boss. The Viceroy of India ruled India hands-on but was answerable to the British government of the day, for example. Pilate as Prefect of Judea was in much the same position.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said, the 'Suffering Servant' is the nation of Israel. It is NOT Jesus ─ that's all Christian retrofit. Ask any Jewish scholar or any of the many non-tendentious Christian scholars.

Of course that is what you will get if you ask a Jewish scholar who does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

I do not believe that the Servant Songs are about the nation of Israel, as they are obviously referring to a man. To try to make them fit to be the nation of Israel is absurd to say the least, but since Jews do not believe in Jesus, they are going to deny any prophecies that refer to Jesus. I have to side with the Christian son this one. Isaiah 42:1–4; Isaiah 49:1–6; Isaiah 50:4–7; and Isaiah 52:13 are referring to the Jesus, although I believe that Isaiah 53 refers to Baha'u'llah, who was the Messiah of the latter days.

In exact the same way, Jesus is not the "Immanuel" of Isaiah 7:14. You only have to read on in that chapter to see that the child referred to is born and becomes the regional king.

Just by the context, it is obvious to me that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to Jesus, not just some child.

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
17 The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

But you cannot fix Isaiah 7:14 and make it be about some other child, because only Jesus was born of a virgin.

Isaiah 7:14 - Bible Gateway

 

[DNB]

Let's all get the stones out, then!

From your perspective, Jesus is a man but not God. This means that God, the only Saviour, has not come to earth to save. Which, in turn, means that man still wallows in sin, with no means of attaining eternal life.

Oh dear.

God is the only saviour, as in He is the architect of redemption. Absolution from sin would not be an option unless God deemed it so. The question then lies as to how He effectuated it. Under the Levitical law it was by the blood of bulls and goats, especially on Yom Kippur. Under the new law of faith, it is through the blood of the creature Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is not God, not divine nor a deity. He only came into existence around 6 - 4 BC. He obeyed God unto perfection, but ultimately his perfection is established by the fact that he loved God with all his heart, soul, and mind (something God cannot do Himself).

Therefore, Jesus is the man who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, first-born of creation and first-born from the dead, the Messiah who is currently seated at God's right-hand side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It all depends upon how you interpret the verses in John. Everything is subject to interpretation.

I believe that Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same because whatever pertained to Jesus, all His acts and doings, were identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh. God cannot become flesh because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

One can easily interpret John either way. But one has to really try to misinterpret the earlier Gospels. The Trinity concept arose due to the fairly blatant self contradictions of the Gospels. It is still a confused mess.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is still a confused mess.

Now THAT is an understatement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The key phrase is, (like you said) because God says different. The Bible declares that Jesus is God many places.

And says that he is not in others. And most of your interpretations are quite the stretch. Desperation causes people to think that the printed word says something other than it says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible says the Word was God and the Word became flesh and lived among us, Immanuel God with us. Have you even read Hebrews 1? Your post #49 only says you don’t understand the Scriptures or know Jesus Christ.

Many people have a hard time interpreting the King James Version. Let's look at a more modern translation:

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

The Son Superior to Angels
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”


It is pretty clear that that verse treats God and Jesus as different entities.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Many people have a hard time interpreting the King James Version. Let's look at a more modern translation:

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

The Son Superior to Angels
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”


It is pretty clear that that verse treats God and Jesus as different entities.

Clear that of the Son, your throne O God will last forever.
Let all the angels worship Him.
Through whom He made the Universe.
So how can you say Jesus isn’t God or worshipped or the Creator with the Father? Just clear and not sure how you don’t see or understand the clear Word.

 

[Trailblazer]

The key phrase is, (like you said) because God says different. The Bible declares that Jesus is God many places.

Where?

 

[Trailblazer]

And says that he is not in others.

The Bible does not declare that Jesus is God in ANY places. If it did it would be contradictory.
I always said you are too nice.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Bible says the Word was God and the Word became flesh and lived among us, Immanuel God with us.

John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word refers to Jesus.

The Word was God because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Jesus was not God incarnated in the flesh, because God cannot become flesh.

The following two verses are about God, not about Jesus. All things were made by God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

To summarize, the Word was Jesus who was a Manifestation of God.

The Holy Spirit and the Word are the "appearance of God." The Word means the divine perfections that "appeared" in Jesus Christ. That's why we have this verse further down.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word (Jesus) was made flesh and dwelt among us means that Jesus, who had previously been with God in the spiritual world (heaven) before His birth, was born into this world (made flesh) and walked among us.

The reason John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," is because Jesus was with God in the spiritual world in the beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clear that of the Son, your throne O God will last forever.
Let all the angels worship Him.
Through whom He made the Universe.
So how can you say Jesus isn’t God or worshipped or the Creator with the Father? Just clear and not sure how you don’t see or understand the clear Word.

Do you realize that is Jesus talking about God? It is very straight forward.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the criteria’s for Biblical Hermeneutics is that a person be born again of the Holy Spirit which you obviously are not.

Citation needed. And it needs to be a valid source.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Do you realize that is Jesus talking about God? It is very straight forward.

How do you figure, but ok if you’re saying Hebrews 1 is Jesus talking about God then according to this Scripture you’re saying that Jesus is God, who spoke to our fathers etc.

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1:1-4‬ ‭ESV‬‬