Jesus as Christ

[Subduction Zone]

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

Oh that I need to see some evidence of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have that backwards.

Actually there are Christians on both sides of this issue and they both use the Bible to support their claims.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh that I need to see some evidence of.

"Through him ( Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."


"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; 8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. 9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD (Jesus) has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind."

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

Whose hands?
The One who made all things, Yeshua.


Alpha (Α or α) and omega (Ω or ω) are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and a title of Christ and God in the Book of Revelation.

Christ and God are One and the same.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

You should talk to one of the modern Arian Christians that are here in the forum. Arianism is making quite a comeback. They could explain their take on John 1:1. Obviously, saying Jesus is Lord is not necessarily the same thing as saying he is God. AND they have verses of their own that you would have to grapple with. At any rate, I don't have a dog in the race, so I won't say more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Through him ( Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."


"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; 8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. 9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD (Jesus) has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind."

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

Whose hands?
The One who made all things, Yeshua.


Alpha (Α or α) and omega (Ω or ω) are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and a title of Christ and God in the Book of Revelation.

Christ and God are One and the same.

That is the claim. It is not the evidence. Instead of wasting time you should have just admitted that you do not have any evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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

What do you take that to mean? Was Jesus good? Yes, He was and is Perfect, Jesus said this to lead this person to faith and to see that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh. Ask yourself the question? Is Jesus good?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you take that to mean? Was Jesus good? Yes, He was and is Perfect, Jesus said this to lead this person to faith and to see that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh. Ask yourself the question? Is Jesus good?

That is a verse where Jesus makes it rather clear that he is not God. The verses in John imply that he is God. Have you ever stopped to think that the different Gospel writers may have had different beliefs about Jesus?

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

The dates you have given for the writing of the Gospels are not the dates traditionally given, but correspond with modern criticism and scepticism. The earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels, which all occur before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, are much more likely. Had this not been the case the destruction of the temple, and of Jerusalem, would have featured in Luke's chronological accounts (taken from Luke and Acts).

The books of the Torah, Prophets and Writings were all in existence before the birth of Jesus, so the prophecies they contain are clearly in existence before the events of the New Testament.

The idea that there were Jews willing to create a fictional character who would fit the prophecies borders on madness. Who would do such a thing and for what benefit? There were false Messiah's, one of whom gets a mention in the book of Acts, but there is nothing to indicate that the many witnesses to Jesus' life made up their stories. If you think it's an easy thing to do then try taking the Tanakh and making up the story of the Messiah as expected by Jews. Your story will contain nothing but holes, l'm sure.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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

I agree that Jesus Christ is the mediator, fully God and fully man. But it's because he was fully God that he his worthy of worship and service.
IMO.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is a verse where Jesus makes it rather clear that he is not God. The verses in John imply that he is God. Have you ever stopped to think that the different Gospel writers may have had different beliefs about Jesus?

Jesus wasn’t saying He was not God, just the opposite. How about you? Answer the question yourself, Is Jesus good?

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is the claim. It is not the evidence. Instead of wasting time you should have just admitted that you do not have any evidence.

If you don't take Bible verses as evidence, what are you doing on this thread? It's a debate about what the Bible says about who Jesus is.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.

The modern Torah Jewish notion of the Messiah is a confused amalgamation of the Messianic prophecies. There are very few 'suffering servant' references applied to the Messiah, but there are many that refer to the second coming. Torah Jews are, therefore, very selective in deciding which prophecies apply and which do not.

The problem with the Jewish selections is that it makes the Messiah wholly man, and not God. Yet scripture declares plainly that only God can save from sin and death.

You say that John's Jesus is like Paul's and unlike the synoptic Jesus. What do you think makes these perspectives irreconcilable? The orthodox Christian position had always been that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What are you suggesting? That three categories are not enough? Do you deny that Jesus was a man?

There are No three categories, that is just a tradition that developed after the first century ended.
God sent His pre-human heavenly Son to Earth. Heavenly Jesus was born as a perfect sinless man.
God's Son is the Lord of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 who has the voice of 'the' archangel.
None of us could be a ransom for the wrong Adam committed, so we needed a ' perfect Adam ' to balance the Scales of Justice for us.
A perfect Adam that would correspond to what Adam was 'before' Adam sinned ( aka broke God's Law )
Who God sent from Heaven is who we call Lord Jesus and Lord Jesus has the voice of 'the' archangel.
We are dealing with two persons. Resurrected Jesus appeared before only one person at Hebrews 9:24 his God.
Resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus appeared before the person of God. Jesus did Not appear to himself.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......... Ask yourself the question? Is Jesus good?

Yes, Jesus is good in a 'relative position' to his God's 'absolute position' - see what Jesus says at Revelation 4:11.
The God of the Bible is Not limited and according to Psalms 90:2 can Not die ( be put to death ).
Jesus, on the other hand, could be put to death. Dead Jesus did Not resurrect himself - Acts of the Apostles 3:15
Good Jesus made it clear as to whom we should worship at John 4:23-24 but to worship his God.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.... But it's because he was fully God that he his worthy of worship and service. IMO.

I find at John 4:23-24 Jesus instructs as to who one should worship. Jesus directed worship to his God and Father.
The resurrected Jesus did Not ascend to himself but to appear before God in heaven on our behalf - Hebrews 9:24.

 

[blü 2]

The modern Torah Jewish notion of the Messiah is a confused amalgamation of the Messianic prophecies. There are very few 'suffering servant' references applied to the Messiah, but there are many that refer to the second coming.

Yes, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel.

But there's no description of a Jewish messiah that's applicable to Jesus. The idea that he was entitled to the honorific "messiah-Christ-anointed" ─ is purely Christian. There's no basis for the claim ─ not that you've made it ─ that the Jews recognized Jesus as the messiah but willfully rejected him.

The problem with the Jewish selections is that it makes the Messiah wholly man, and not God.

In Jewish thought there's only one God, and although [he] specially favors some of [his] Chosen People, such as Moses, Elisha or David, [his] representatives whether angelic or human are [his] subordinates. The ruach, the breath of God, is not a separate entity as the Holy Ghost is, but a manifestation of God [him]self.

Yet scripture declares plainly that only God can save from sin and death.

But there's no reason [he] can't do it by [his] representatives ─ certainly none that I know of. Jesus says more than once that God has given him the power to forgive sins, for example.

You say that John's Jesus is like Paul's and unlike the synoptic Jesus.

Yes, both express views of Jesus colored with gnosticism, and regard Jesus as the gnostic demiurge.

What do you think makes these perspectives irreconcilable? The orthodox Christian position had always been that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

For the reasons I stated ─ all versions of Jesus deny they're God, none claims to be God, all pray to God which is pretty silly if they're addressing themselves, and nothing even vaguely resembling the Trinity doctrine was known to the authors of the NT, since it didn't exist until centuries after their time.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You should talk to one of the modern Arian Christians that are here in the forum. Arianism is making quite a comeback.........

The ^ above ^ about Arianism making a comeback is news to me.
I find Arius taught God is Un-begotten and without a beginning. The Son, because he is begotten can not be God in the sense that the Father is. The Son did Not exist from all eternity but was created and exists by the will of the Father.

Yes, the Bible does teach the Son is begotten.
Yes, the Bible does teach God is Un-begotten being from everlasting ( No beginning ) -Psalms 90:2
Yes, the Son was created and like us exist (Not by our own will) but by God 's (The Creator) will - Revelation 4:11

 

[ElishaElijah]

I find at John 4:23-24 Jesus instructs as to who one should worship. Jesus directed worship to his God and Father.
The resurrected Jesus did Not ascend to himself but to appear before God in heaven on our behalf - Hebrews 9:24.

The Son glorifies and exalts the Father and the Father glorifies and exalts the Son.

 

[pearl]

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

Critical scholarship, it would not have been compatible at all with Scripture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Critical scholarship, it would not have been compatible at all with Scripture.

I find John 4:23-24 to be compatible with all Scripture. Jesus instructed as to who to worship.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12