Jesus as Christ

[ElishaElijah]

The fact that a persons heart could be hardened to justify sexual immoral behavior as not surprising as I also did for many years which affected my relationships in a negative way not only with God but other people.

The Truth About Pornography – Gospel Broadcasting Network

 

[Redemptionsong]

Baha'is do not believe in 'saved' in the same way that Christians do because we do not believe in original sin, but we do believe that Jesus died for the sins and inequities of all of humanity that were inherited from Adam. So in that sense we believe we were saved by Jesus.

I believe that Jesus ascended to heaven but there is no reason to believe that Jesus will ever return from heaven since Jesus never promised to return to this world. In fact, Jesus said that He finished His work in this world and He would be no more in this world after He ascended to heaven.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

I'm familiar with your take on John, but the orthodox Christian understanding of these passages of scripture is that Christ's work as a 'mediator' is finished. When he returns he is no longer mediating; he is judging.

If Bahais require more than one Messiah, in whom do they place their faith? Or can we conclude that for Bahais a man is justified by works rather than by faith?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

What reasons do you have for NOT believing that Jesus lived as God amongst men on earth?

What reasons do you have for BELIEVING that Jesus lived as God amongst men on earth?

Reasons are for stuck people. Whoever elevates rationality is a coward and a liar.

 

[Redemptionsong]

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

You have the site to use. Which of these supposed contradictions do you wish to highlight and discuss?

 

[rational experiences]

The human teaching one word is God.

So I can quote rationally in creating creation history O circulating bodies movement is G. A spiral back into O and O split is DD and then DD becomes OO.

God creating more the creator action historic by spiral action G.

Movement of one by its word. God.

So does scientific machine conversion move the reaction in that format?

No.

Does a man's thought about calculated science formula express that word?

No.

Why you are wrong.

Did O splitting into DD back to back O form own a form an apple or heart shape?

Yes.

Did the heart shape become God stone the earth O,? Heart shape hardened.

Yes.

A humans emotional state is not just heartfelt it is chemical also plus disturbed emotional response behaviour.

Naturally says a thinker scientist theist. Was G O D O only in forming. Not human terms.

Stories about natural God also was not science whatsoever.

Told against occult destroyer men theists. By thinking conditions.

Men who quote a human life by symbolic referenced maths formula. When in their theorising mind they pretend they personally are an alien safe. Satan safe or a God safe by defined meaning each of all those bodies still continues to exist after conversion in science.

With no intention of allowing real life the human as true one life form owned to exist by machine conditions including human as a formula with formula reactions through our bio water oxygen atmosphere. Direct to machine radiating mass.

Where bio life only lives.

Holy water title our holy atmosphere and Satanists were not allowed to change it by imposed human law on a sworn oath bible.

A machine design first in string theory is no reaction. First one real answer.

Reaction says in science I want what space had then pretends he was doing in the past a reaction when no human existed.

Earths space opens. Cause effect life gets destroyed by a changed space introduced invented channel into earths held mass.

Theist completely informed claims his achievement.

At the moment earth space won against the last experiment. Science says man and machine will win.

Science says once I used two machines to destroy life. Man now has Multi machines trying to achieve the same original thesis from cosmos direct first to earth.

Ignoring the fact science had already destroyed first life and earth mass was completely eradicated.

Is still trying to work out how much solid mass the face of earth owns. You can actually study his thesis and beliefs as he truly believes he can eradicate gods stone natural form in space conditions.

By claim. First form in space before big bang blast was cold then mass heat reacted and changed form so energy then existed.

Is no different to claim God stone mass is cold highest mass in space let me blast it.

As man in science has always gotten energy by converting god earths mass. Cold form.

he says God is just lots of fused particles I want God to convert into new energy.

He also says O mass in space is owning no inner zero and earth converted by the outer face zero. As God is from beginnings O and only heat converted unto it cooled.

From O energy he says thermal into O cooled planet form.

Earth was a direct beginning body. I know he says. O has no inner zero.

Tells you everyday his confession in science to destroy God but no one listens anymore.

As cold mass no matter where it was in a time theme is the highest form always.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I apologize if I was unclear. The Tanakh was written by our fellow humans as they existed between two and three thousand years ago, without outside interference; nor do they ever claim otherwise. But the Tanakh is important as a cultural reference point and rule-book.
I read that as a test, not a prophecy.

The trouble with prophecies is that they're a form of magic, and the number of authenticated instances of magic remains obstinately at zero. As I think I said, they were however one of the instruments of politics available to the players in ancient times. They can also come in handy for dating things eg the Jesus of Mark foretells the sack of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2) , so we know Mark is written after 70 CE.
David is adopted by God as [his] son (Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:6). In Mark, Jesus becomes the son of God in exactly the same way.
Yes, I think the evidence for that is very strong ─ and as I showed you regarding the author of Matthew, blatant and undeniable. The fact that the gospels can be accounted for in this way ─ and that all the supernatural stories are necessarily fictions ─ make it credible that there was no historical Jesus, though my own view is that this remains an open question.
The only credible story of the birth of Jesus is the one in Mark, where he's just an ordinary Jew (until. we're told, the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son). As I've also previously mentioned, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe, and the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the products of divine insemination. Five Jesuses, three origins, only one credible origin.
, No, parts of scripture are taken by the gospel authors to be "prophecies" of Jesus, and the stories of Jesus get written to fit ─ the examples I gave you from Matthew are both outrageous and unambiguous.
No, I ask why their own God would do this [his] own "Chosen People" ─ since the morality of it would be altogether vile, not to say absurd.
A political slogan used by Zionists from the latter 19th century to the founding of Israel. Ancient possession is capable of being a powerful psychological tool for the dispossessed.

It's clear that you deny all prophecy, for to accept prophecy is to accept God's existence! This is exactly the reason that you date Mark's Gospel after 70 CE, because it contains a clear prophecy to the destruction of the temple - a prophecy you cannot countenance! Yet, Mark's Gospel is believed to have been written before Luke and Acts, and if this is the case we need to know why Luke concludes his chronological record abruptly in about 61 CE. Acts makes no mention of the destruction of the temple, or of Jerusalem. So, you have a problem in explaining why Luke's two records do not fit with your later dates.

The Tanakh contains three sections: The Torah, Prophets, and Writings. All three sections are 'prophecies' in the sense that the writers received their inspiration from God. To deny this is to deny the very words of the writers. In doing so, you make them all liars.

Prophets were not accepted in Israel unless they proved themselves as worthy of their office. Many were also killed for delivering truthful messages that the people disliked, so their office was neither easy nor comfortable.

Any attempt to write a history of Israel with the prophecy and prophets erased makes a complete nonsense of Jewish heritage. It would mean that the Law was wholly the product of man, that prophets were of no value to kings, and that the trust lsrael placed in YHWH brought no blessing. Yet, in accordance with the Torah, lsrael's history has been a succession of blessings and cursings, dependent on the obedience of the people.

When we last discussed the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke, l demonstrated that Mary must have known the details of Jesus' birth and the year in which it occurred. She was alive at the crucifixion and she was then cared for by John (specifically requested by Jesus at the time of his crucifixion). Since John lived to old age, we know that all the details and information relating to Jesus' birth were available to the writers of the Gospels. Claims that the census under Herod didn't occur are only made because, as yet, no extra-biblical confirmation has been found. For those of us who accept the countless witnesses from the times, whose testimonies we have no reason to disbelieve, the Bible remains a source of trustworthy information and wisdom. In fact, l would go further and claim that all scripture is God-breathed and inerrant.

It's the internal integrity of scripture that leads people to Christ, and to the truth.

IMO.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Reasons are for stuck people. Whoever elevates rationality is a coward and a liar.

Faith comes by hearing, which must involve understanding. Does our understanding not involve reasoning?

 

[rational experiences]

Science used as the creation human argument. Is science.

Science says I speak on behalf of planet earths natural status versus science of cosmic destruction sun satanisms.

Is just science themes as God.

O planet existed first is one.
O one owned it's heavens
Sun attacks earth converted it. Why men in science learnt radiation conversion of God stone mass.

Pretty basic advice human.

In all told thesis a human is living us the ignored part of the theme I know O God a planet in space themes.

So if theists as humans agree we all are humans on earth using human theories.

We are arguing terms of applied human thesis.

To own a place to argue correctly about the science themes creation as humans.

You either believe a planet exists first or you believe no planet exists first.

When you are only all just humans standing upon the planet.

Which was the actual human reason to argue on behalf of god O earth first or argue just for cosmic themes.

The irrational behaviour of a human theist is the first argument in science. Where you place yourself body as you theory

 

[Sundance]

What reasons do you have for NOT believing that Jesus lived as God amongst men on earth?

What reasons do you have for BELIEVING that Jesus lived as God amongst men on earth?

Dear friend, I think you might have mistitled the thread, given the question. The Messiah figure in Judaism is not divine unto himself. Would your thread not have been more suitably titled ‘Jesus as God’?

To address the question asked, although I would fall outside the immediate religious trajectory dealt with here, I would have no problem with the conception that Jesus is a human manifestation of the generative principle of the Universe [i.e. the Supreme God, Zeus, or Universal Reason] (what we Stoics call ‘Logos’, which you Christians interestingly use for Jesus). God can make Himself known, in my own conception, through whichever means He wills, and we can know God through our own intellect and the contemplation of the Heavens.

 

[rational experiences]

If you placate that gods movement by word the creator is O G spiral back to O into DD split if O into DD into OO then God the heart shape DD back to back hardened into stone. O planet earths human theist teaching.

Men in sciences claim God is the heart of creation.

If you say the son of God in the heavens spirit owning spirit form only then science would quote gods spirit in heavens moved as O JESUS. As God is not in the heavens form.

The word as spirit as it's inheritor not owning the heart as God O earth stone but the sacrificed heart.

As learning I would place letters inside of the circle O as informed as I was spirit taught to ponder the meaning of spirits movement. By its word meaning.

Science is not Jesus in other words.

Of which science never owned. It was holy and always was taught as not science but holy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What reasons do you have for NOT believing that Jesus lived as God amongst men on earth?

My reason for not believing that is the lack of reasons for believing that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the Bible, and all that the Bible reveals, not evidence enough?

What evidence is lacking?

The bible is the claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible cannot be a book of superstition if it actively discourages superstition....which it does.

You mean, it argues against the competition...

Note in Daniel 2:27,28 that true prophecy is not accessible to wise men, astrologers, magicians, or soothsayers.

Which implies that it is accessible to other people with the "correct" or "real" access to the 'paranormal' / 'supernatural' sources of information.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that those "other people" that do have access, are those who believe the rest of the book also.

 

[blü 2]

It's clear that you deny all prophecy, for to accept prophecy is to accept God's existence!

More precisely, the existence of magic ─ and as I said, the authenticated examples of magic number zero.

This is exactly the reason that you date Mark's Gospel after 70 CE, because it contains a clear prophecy to the destruction of the temple

And not just me but every historian acting in accordance with reasoned enquiry.

- a prophecy you cannot countenance!

More precisely, a story I have no reason to believe is an accurate statement about real events.

Yet, Mark's Gospel is believed to have been written before Luke and Acts

Yes. I agree that Mark is the first gospel.

Acts makes no mention of the destruction of the temple, or of Jerusalem. So, you have a problem in explaining why Luke's two records do not fit with your later dates.

No, that's not my problem. It's plain that the authors of Matthew and of Luke used Mark as their template.

It's also plain that the author of Mark gets his Trial-of-Jesus scene from Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in his Wars. That wasn't published till 75 CE, pushing the date of Mark at least that much later.

The Tanakh contains three sections: The Torah, Prophets, and Writings. All three sections are 'prophecies' in the sense that the writers received their inspiration from God. To deny this is to deny the very words of the writers. In doing so, you make them all liars.

You'd better quote me the words of the authors saying that they were taking dictation from God then, because I'm not aware of any author of any book in the Tanakh or NT who makes that claim.

Any attempt to write a history of Israel with the prophecy and prophets erased makes a complete nonsense of Jewish heritage.

We'll have to agree to strongly disagree on that point.

It would mean that the Law was wholly the product of man

Which it plainly is.

, that prophets were of no value to kings

That's a different question, since I've already mentioned the uses of prophecy ─ by which I mean "prophecy" ─ in politics.

and that the trust lsrael placed in YHWH brought no blessing.

You'll do better to get Jewish opinion on that, but you've already said the Jewish God was the ringleader of antisemitism in the Christian era.

When we last discussed the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke, l demonstrated that Mary must have known the details of Jesus' birth and the year in which it occurred.

She was present at the birth of her own child, I think we can agree. But we have no statement from her as to who the father was. That's been magicked up by the author of Matthew in particular, and copied in Luke ─ all because the translators of the Septuagint had misleadingly translated 'almah as parthenos!

She was alive at the crucifixion and she was then cared for by John (specifically requested by Jesus at the time of his crucifixion).

We don't actually know whether John acted on the request or not.

Since John lived to old age, we know that all the details and information relating to Jesus' birth were available to the writers of the Gospels.

We don't know who the author of John is.

Claims that the census under Herod didn't occur are only made because, as yet, no extra-biblical confirmation has been found.

It goes further than that. There's no record of a Romans census anywhere, any time, that required people to return to their native village to enroll ─ and why on earth would there be?

For those of us who accept the countless witnesses from the times, whose testimonies we have no reason to disbelieve, the Bible remains a source of trustworthy information and wisdom. In fact, l would go further and claim that all scripture is God-breathed and inerrant.

That's not very flattering to God, considering the stories can't even agree who Jesus was ─ an ordinary Jew, a Jew with God's Y-chromosome, or a Jew who'd previously created the material universe. Indeed, was it God, as Genesis says, or the Jesus of Paul, as Paul says, or the Jesus of John, as the author of John says, who created the material universe? How is it that the God breathing in the ears of the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke forgot to mention it to them?

And I look forward to those quotes where the authors say they're infallibly taking down God's infallible word.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Dear friend, I think you might have mistitled the thread, given the question. The Messiah figure in Judaism is not divine unto himself. Would your thread not have been more suitably titled ‘Jesus as God’?

To address the question asked, although I would fall outside the immediate religious trajectory dealt with here, I would have no problem with the conception that Jesus is a human manifestation of the generative principle of the Universe [i.e. the Supreme God, Zeus, or Universal Reason] (what we Stoics call ‘Logos’, which you Christians interestingly use for Jesus). God can make Himself known, in my own conception, through whichever means He wills, and we can know God through our own intellect and the contemplation of the Heavens.

Hello and welcome.
To my understanding, the reason that Torah Jews do not believe that the Messiah can be divine is because they do not see a way to conflate deity with humanity.

Clear prophecies that relate to the birth of the Messiah as the 'son of David' take precedence over passages that show the everlasting nature of both the Messiah king and his kingdom [Psalm 110:1]. Christians have an answer to this duality of nature, but it is not something accepted by Torah Jews.

Your own views on Jesus sound very similar to those of the Bahai faith. The problem l have with this interpretation is that it fails to deal adequately with the issue of sin. I am not convinced that we can know God until we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within our hearts, and to receive God's Spirit is a matter of grace, based on faith.

IMO.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The bible is the claim.

And faith is the evidence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You mean, it argues against the competition...



Which implies that it is accessible to other people with the "correct" or "real" access to the 'paranormal' / 'supernatural' sources of information.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that those "other people" that do have access, are those who believe the rest of the book also.

Not so much the rest of the book as the God who inspires it!

God chose his people, lsrael, and from amongst those people he chose his literary prophets. Israel has always been his mouthpiece. IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have the site to use. Which of these supposed contradictions do you wish to highlight and discuss?

Why don't you pick one to start with. We will see if you have a valid explanation or just apologetics. Apologetics is a loss.

 

[Redemptionsong]

More precisely, the existence of magic ─ and as I said, the authenticated examples of magic number zero.
And not just me but every historian acting in accordance with reasoned enquiry.
More precisely, a story I have no reason to believe is an accurate statement about real events.
Yes. I agree that Mark is the first gospel.
No, that's not my problem. It's plain that the authors of Matthew and of Luke used Mark as their template.

It's also plain that the author of Mark gets his Trial-of-Jesus scene from Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in his Wars. That wasn't published till 75 CE, pushing the date of Mark at least that much later.
You'd better quote me the words of the authors saying that they were taking dictation from God then, because I'm not aware of any author of any book in the Tanakh or NT who makes that claim.
We'll have to agree to strongly disagree on that point.
Which it plainly is.
That's a different question, since I've already mentioned the uses of prophecy ─ by which I mean "prophecy" ─ in politics.
You'll do better to get Jewish opinion on that, but you've already said the Jewish God was the ringleader of antisemitism in the Christian era.
She was present at the birth of her own child, I think we can agree. But we have no statement from her as to who the father was. That's been magicked up by the author of Matthew in particular, and copied in Luke ─ all because the translators of the Septuagint had misleadingly translated 'almah as parthenos!
We don't actually know whether John acted on the request or not.
We don't know who the author of John is.
It goes further than that. There's no record of a Romans census anywhere, any time, that required people to return to their native village to enroll ─ and why on earth would there be?
That's not very flattering to God, considering the stories can't even agree who Jesus was ─ an ordinary Jew, a Jew with God's Y-chromosome, or a Jew who'd previously created the material universe. Indeed, was it God, as Genesis says, or the Jesus of Paul, as Paul says, or the Jesus of John, as the author of John says, who created the material universe? How is it that the God breathing in the ears of the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke forgot to mention it to them?

And I look forward to those quotes where the authors say they're infallibly taking down God's infallible word.

Let me begin by saying that magic is not the same as a miracle. Magic is clearly seen to be a practice contrary to God's will, as stated in Leviticus 19:31 and Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
Leviticus 19:31. 'Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.'
Deuteronomy 18:9-14. 'There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.'

Miracles, on the other hand, are seen as signs and wonders from God. To deny that God has the power to intervene in human affairs is the same as suggesting that God cannot create, or rearrange, natural phenomenon. Meanwhile, science cannot explain the origins of the universe, except to admit there was a beginning. And by this admission, philosophers have concluded that time and space could not have existed before the 'singularity' of the Big Bang. Scientists are, therefore, hard pushed not to admit to miracles, given that 'something' appeared without rational explanation! So, accepting the science of a 'beginning' to the universe is also admitting to the possibility of a miracle-making God.

In demonstrating that all the scriptures of the Bible are inspired by God [2 Timothy 3:16], one need only refer to Jesus' own words. Speaking of the Tanakh, Jesus said, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished' [Matthew 5:17-18] Since the expression, 'the law and the prophets' meant the entire Hebrew Bible, we can feel certain that Jesus himself did no doubt the inspiration of the whole of scripture. In Luke 24:44, he confirms that prophecy is to be found '...in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me'.

There are many other references to the inspiration of scripture. In Psalm 119:89 it says, 'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'

Moses, the greatest of Jewish prophets, said to the children of Israel, 'Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.'
So, the Torah, or Law, was not to be altered because it was given by God. It was given by God, and the voice of God was heard by the whole congregation of Israel, as it says in Deuteronomy 4:13, 'And the LORD spake unto you out of the the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.'

The prophet Zechariah says, 'Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts.'

Zechariah states clearly that prophets received God's words 'in his spirit' - the same spirit of prophecy that inspired all the prophets.

If one acknowledges that the Tanakh is an inspired writing, then one can begin a meaningful dialogue about the person of Christ, and of Jesus as the one truly 'anointed' of God. All the talk of different Jesus' dissolves into nonsense when one realises that the Messiah must fulfil the law in all its various aspects. This includes the Messiah being both fully God and fully man.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not so much the rest of the book as the God who inspires it!

Uhu, uhu.

So it's exactly as I said. And @Polymath257 saw it too.

The book is not against superstition. It is against all superstition that isn't part of its own lore.
It's totally fine with its own superstition. In fact, it demands superstitious belief of its own claims.

God chose his people, lsrael, and from amongst those people he chose his literary prophets. Israel has always been his mouthpiece. IMO.

Such is the superstitious belief indeed.