Jesus as Christ

[Altfish]

To suggest that Jesus was without witnesses is untrue. There were multiple witnesses to his life, and to his resurrection.

There are also numerous prophecies to the coming of a 'suffering servant' which find fulfilment in the person of Jesus Christ.

But are any of these account not in The Bible?

The trouble with prophecies is they are often written after the event they are predicting. Or the event is written about to fulfill a prophecy.

 

[rational experiences]

I am human.

First two origin humans are a long time deceased.

All humans since are babies grown into human adults. Sex the only reason we live. Atmospheric changes defines if sex produced a healthy or unhealthy baby.

Human condition rational.

No science argument as science is who argues.

Reason. Humans are born. By human sex a physical sperm of man. A physical ovary of woman.

Sex act.

For a human to be a man his life body suffers being human.

Feels pain. Endured pain. Physical human body cell blood bones is changed.

God O earth present the whole time.
Whole natural atmosphere defined by gas terms. The same always.
Supporting water oxygen atmosphere humans live inside of.

The same equal human condition highest human.

Highest human is healthy. Should be DNA perfect yet most of us no longer are.

Human reasoning I live by his terms natural science man history stated about planet earths conditions only.

Not a scientific thesis as I am already self present human with God by God terms.

Anyone disagreeing is lying. Plain fact.

We all are with God equal.

Son of God sacrificed meant only a man's living scientific advice. Gods owned gas heaven spirit a body of as mass was removed why life changed of man.

As a man he lives as A man is advised as that man and is equal to all humans. Just advised spiritually means by gas status.

Science says it was especially informed as and by a human man's ego.

Men own the human man sexual organ for human procreation yet he is a co body creator in life.

Life's creator human is first owned and expressed sexually by human men.

The sexual status human man was sciences inventor.

Physical human spiritual phenomena is in fact seen everyday in Multi humans worldwide the same.

Advice in man's science either saves life from being destroyed or it gives advice how to destroy life.

All humans first name is human.
Human man and human woman rightfully side by side.

Man scientist confessed and put science and machine thesis by his side instead.

Bible his man's life confession said that man of God science had sacrificed man's life.

Jesus was a given man's title by men in science who apply naming to all things theirselves.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I believe that Jesus lived as a Manifestation of God on earth. Below are some of the reasons I believe that.

Jesus was the Son of God, but the Son is not identical to the Father since the Father possesses certain Attributes that the Son does not possess: The Attributes that are unique to God: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, and Immaterial, nobody except God can have those Attributes.

However, the Father is in the Son.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

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, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are 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.

God was manifest in the flesh and that is why Jesus said to the Jews:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Can there be, or does there need to be, more than one Christ? Truth is truth and does not change from one generation to the next. Why, therefore, is it necessary to sent repeated manifestations?

The purpose of coming to earth, according to Christian belief, was to pay the price for sin and fulfil the law in righteousness, which Jesus Christ accomplished. The giving of the Holy Spirit is testament to the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension to heaven.

Repeated manifestations suggests failure rather than success.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Where did Jesus make the assertion that he was God dwelling on earth?
Jesus never claimed to be God, Christians claimed he was God.

In claiming to be the Son of God he was claiming that the Spirit of the Father rested upon him in full measure [Luke 4:18]. The question is whether or not a human being can 'see' the Spirit of the Father that worked through Christ.

 

[Redemptionsong]

But are any of these account not in The Bible?

The trouble with prophecies is they are often written after the event they are predicting. Or the event is written about to fulfill a prophecy.

The Bible is a collection of writings that provides precise evidence gathered at the time.

It should be obvious that the best histories are not written on the day of the event. Had a history of 9/11 been written the day the twin towers fell we would have very little understanding of the causes and connections. A careful gathering of the evidence takes time.

The New Testament is not the writing of one man but several men based on the witness testimony of numerous other people. It also makes constant reference to the Tanakh, showing, at every point, that the life of Jesus Christ was prophesied. And one cannot argue that the prophecies of the Tanakh were not known before the times of the Romans. Jerusalem had been the centre of Jewish temple religion for centuries and these practices can be traced back to the time of king Solomon. So to argue that the Tanakh, with its prophecies, was not in existence before the time of Jesus is a position that cannot be sustained.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Saying that God was His Father does not make Jesus equal to His Father. Jews 'mistakenly' believed that Jesus was claiming to be God but Jesus never claimed that.

The verse that follows shows that Jesus was not claiming to be God because Jesus differentiated Himself from God the Father:

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

But its also true that he was distinct from the Father, as every son is distinct. Jesus was the mediator between God and man whilst on earth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, if you believe that Jesus is God, then you not only are not a Christian, but a blasphemer.
I just gave you the most fundamental principles in Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, as to why Jesus cannot be God. And not one of them were you able to address, let alone acknowledge. The trinity or modalism is from the devil.

Your unfounded and wayward misinterpretation of John 10:33-36 entirely reveals an incompetence and bias in your exegesis, and thus, it can only be described as eisegesis.

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.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well it all depends on whom you ask. The old Arian Christians based their beliefs that Jesus was NOT God on the scriptures too.

We've got those same heresies repeated on RF!

 

[Redemptionsong]

That depends on what you mean by "came from God". The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John "came from God" because they'd existed in heaven with God and made the material universe. The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Mark "came from God" in the sense that they were the result of divine insemination of a virgin and thus had God's Y-chromosome. But the Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jew until his baptism. Only then does God adopt him.
Yes, although as I pointed out in #47, all five versions of Jesus expressly say that's wrong and never claim to be God ─ so orthodoxy makes all five versions of Jesus liars and deceivers.
Two points. First, no, that belief is an external and late imposition on scripture, and again I cite all five Jesus' express denials that they're God, and the fact that the Trinity doctrine didn't exist till the 4th century CE.

Second, nothing explains "all of scripture" because the Tanakh and the NT are two sets of writings written at different times by different authors for different purposes, and accordingly contain a great many contradictions and inconsistencies, both internally and between them.
But that's a wholly different thing to being God.

The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is always the same man. The perspective is dependent on whether one wants to emphasize his role as Servant, Son of Man, Son of God or King of the Jews. All four perspectives have their roots in the prophecies of the Tanakh.

The doctrine of the trinity exists in scripture and does not suddenly appear in the 4th century CE. The Church attempted to establish orthodoxy in the face of growing heresies, and hence the need to distinguish between the various interpretations arising in different branches of the Church.

We know that even today there are those who would like to claim that John's Gospel is not compatible with the synoptic Gospels, but this is really just a reflection of their own bias and ignorance. Jesus is prophesied to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.

And l know we disagree on the internal integrity of scripture. I fail to see, and have not been shown, scriptures that are inconsistent or irreconcilable. The scriptures, lMO, are inspired by God and can be relied on to lead a person to the truth of Christ.

 

[Altfish]

The Bible is a collection of writings that provides precise evidence gathered at the time.

It should be obvious that the best histories are not written on the day of the event. Had a history of 9/11 been written the day the twin towers fell we would have very little understanding of the causes and connections. A careful gathering of the evidence takes time.

The New Testament is not the writing of one man but several men based on the witness testimony of numerous other people. It also makes constant reference to the Tanakh, showing, at every point, that the life of Jesus Christ was prophesied. And one cannot argue that the prophecies of the Tanakh were not known before the times of the Romans. Jerusalem had been the centre of Jewish temple religion for centuries and these practices can be traced back to the time of king Solomon. So to argue that the Tanakh, with its prophecies, was not in existence before the time of Jesus is a position that cannot be sustained.

I feared that would be the case, if it is in The Bible it is true.

You obviously understand that when things are written is critical BUT, to use your example, much was written about 9/11 on the day and in the weeks after. Yes, things are still being written but all are based on contemporary reports and any changes are minor and mainly opinion.
But where are the reports of JC's death and resurrection from the day after?
According to Wiki ... "Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses." So the earliest were written by people who did not witness the events about 30-years after they occurred.

I stand to be corrected but wasn't the Tanakh (or the books that it refers to) written before JC was born?
And I would argue that many of the stories in The Bible were written solely to fulfill prophecies.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, they are not God according to the scriptures, they are only God according to the 'man-made' Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
I believe that you have been duped.

The Scriptures aren’t man-made but God inspired and His Word. John 1, Isaiah 9 Colossians 1, Revelation are just a few showing that Jesus is God and the Son. Duped is the person who is deceived by Satan and led astray by a false message.

 

[blü 2]

The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is always the same man. The perspective is dependent on whether one wants to emphasize his role as Servant, Son of Man, Son of God or King of the Jews. All four perspectives have their roots in the prophecies of the Tanakh.

I know of no basis for what you say.

Where does the Tanakh say that two versions of Jesus will have pre-existed in heaven with God, let alone created the material universe instead of God?

Where does the Tanakh say that two versions of Jesus will be born to a virgin properly so called as a result of divine insemination?

Where does the Tanakh say that one version of Jesus will be an ordinary Jew until adopted by God as [his] son on the model of Psalm 2:7?

The doctrine of the trinity exists in scripture and does not suddenly appear in the 4th century CE.

How can it exist in scripture when as I quoted you every version of Jesus denies he's God and never claims to be God?

The Church attempted to establish orthodoxy in the face of growing heresies, and hence the need to distinguish between the various interpretations arising in different branches of the Church.

In this case the Church had for a long time been under steady political pressure to elevate the central figure of Christianity to God status, but had rejected opening themselves up to Jewish taunts of being polytheists like the pagans, and so rejected both the idea that Jesus was simply a manifestation of God, and the idea that Jesus, the Father and the Ghost constituted a corporation, partnership, or club, and the idea that God was the sum of the three. Thus the Trinity doctrine was devised, and as I said, it's "a mystery in the strict sense" ─ that is, it's incoherent. It would however be coherent if Christianity had admitted it had three gods.

We know that even today there are those who would like to claim that John's Gospel is not compatible with the synoptic Gospels

As I've pointed out earlier, and again above, John's Jesus is like Paul's and unlike the synoptic Jesuses, two of whom (Matthew's and Luke's virgin birth) are different from the third, Mark's ordinary Jew adopted as son.

Jesus is prophesied to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.

Jesus bears no resemblance to a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews nor anointed by the priesthood (that last being what 'messiah' and its Greek form khristos / Christ mean).

Nor do I see how the Jewish God of the Tanakh can be thought to have had [his] envoy on earth be the direct cause of Christianity's two thousand years of often murderous antisemitism.

And l know we disagree on the internal integrity of scripture. I fail to see, and have not been shown, scriptures that are inconsistent or irreconcilable.

Well, we can start by sorting out the five Jesuses and their three irreconcilable origins. That will only be the first step in a very long journey, but if you want to start somewhere, start here.

Next step would be to see how well Jesus fits the Jewish notion of a messiah anyway.

 

[Fool]

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?

jesus isn't God absolute. Jesus even claimed that the Father was greater. He never claimed to be the father. So being a fractal of something doesn't make you the whole of something

 

[Polymath257]

That is not the ONLY way you can know if something exists:

There are only four accepted methods of comprehension—that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods.

The first method is by the senses—that is to say, all that the eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by all the European philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of sight. The sight sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot trust it.

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

The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding. They proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason.

Notwithstanding this, they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their views—that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical arguments—so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving. Afterward the Ptolemaic theory was spread abroad, and the idea of Plato was entirely forgotten, until at last a new observer again called it to life. Thus all the mathematicians disagreed, although they relied upon arguments of reason. In the same way, by logical arguments, they would prove a problem at a certain time, then afterward by arguments of the same nature they would deny it. So one of the philosophers would firmly uphold a theory for a time with strong arguments and proofs to support it, which afterward he would retract and contradict by arguments of reason. Therefore, it is evident that the method of reason is not perfect, for the differences of the ancient philosophers, the want of stability and the variations of their opinions, prove this. For if it were perfect, all ought to be united in their ideas and agreed in their opinions.

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 hrough 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.

The third method of understanding is by tradition—that is, through the text of the Holy Scriptures—for people say, “In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus.” This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason.

As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

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.

Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe, is liable to error.

For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this method, as has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are intellectual, the same is true; or if they are traditional, such proofs also are not perfect. Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.

But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 297-299

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.

That is illogical because:

(1) observation is not the only way of knowing (see above) and
(2) only what exists in the physical world can be observed. God does not exist in the physical world therefore God cannot be observed.

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.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well it all depends on whom you ask. The old Arian Christians based their beliefs that Jesus was NOT God on the scriptures too.

I don’t take anyone’s view but God’s view and what His Word says. The Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelled among us. God became flesh and blood, lived a sinless life, humbled Himself in this manner, died and rose from the dead, is seated at the right hand of God the Father, is coming to Judge the living and the dead, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, everyone will worship Jesus Christ, without exception.

 

[ElishaElijah]

jesus isn't God absolute. Jesus even claimed that the Father was greater. He never claimed to be the father. So being a fractal of something doesn't make you the whole of something

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:9-10‬ ‭ESV‬‬

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t take anyone’s view but God’s view and what His Word says. The Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelled among us. God became flesh and blood, lived a sinless life, humbled Himself in this manner, died and rose from the dead, is seated at the right hand of God the Father, is coming to Judge the living and the dead, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, everyone will worship Jesus Christ, without exception.

The Bible can easily be interpreted either way. It is only in John that he appears to claim to be God, and even that is not clear. In the other Gospels he appears to be saying that he is not God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:9-10‬ ‭ESV‬‬

How is that supposed to help you at all?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Just because some people worshiped Jesus that does not mean that Jesus wanted to be worshiped. Jesus did not consider Himself equal to God and He did not want anyone to worship Him. He wanted people to worship God.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

If you don't worship him, do you really have any part in him?
Even nature worships him.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, if you believe that Jesus is God, then you not only are not a Christian, but a blasphemer.

You have that backwards.