Jesus is not God

[Dimi95]

Hi @blü 2 , i would like to ask some questions and answer since you made a lot of unsupported opinions.
So,

So, for example, how do you account for the five different versions of Jesus in the NT, each devised by an author who never met an historical Jesus?

How do you mean five different versions , in what sense do you suggest that? State the verses,present the evidence.

The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish man

Nono , 'I AM' from Exodus is in Mark , one verse is enough to prove otherwise.

until his baptism by JtB, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son on the model of Psalm 2:7 (affirmed at Acts 13:33).

Untill?
First we need to see if it is really ordinary as you say.

He is not descended from David and says you don't need to be.

What is the connection between the first and the second statement?
Or
What has 'He is not descended from David' have to do 'you don't need to be' and who says that anyone has to be?

The Jesus of Matthew is born when God impregnates his mother, meaning he has God's Y-chromosome.

'Impregnetes'?
There is no such thing as 'Impregnates' in our culture.

"Wachira Murage, a doctor based at Savannah Healthcare, says naturally, fertilisation of gametes (sex cells) only occurs between a male and a female of the same species. Hence a dog's sperm cannot fertilise a human's egg. This means fantasy seekers with animals cannot get pregnant."

Horiffic Risks Of Sex With Animals

Horiffic Risks Of Sex With Animals

www.standardmedia.co.ke

Even his birth starts with a miracle in the narratives.
We cannot explain how it happend.It's impossible if you orient yourself with science.
The only way that seems to be logical is if you belive that he was born 'differently'.

The Gospel of Luke Ch.1 talks about it in some sense:

30-31
"So the angel said to her; 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.'
'And Look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus'."

Then Mary asked:

"But Mary said to the angel:
'How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?
In answer the angel said to her:
'Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God's Son.'

So, Mary asked, how was it possible for her to become pregnant without having sexual relations with a man?

It's quite clear that she understands how a child can be conceived.

He's said to be descended from David by a nonsensical 'genealogy' that leads to Joseph, who is expressly NOT his father.

Non-sensical? Why , what are the reasons ?

Jewish culture is known for its geneology.

Jewish Genealogy - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

Learn how to research your Jewish family tree

www.jewfaq.org

This is how Matthew starts:
"This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:"

The Jesus of Luke is similar, but the pretend genealogy is again for Joseph, and irreconcilable with Matthew's.

Joseph accepted Jesus as his son.

And who is the the father of Joseph then ? Jacob or Heli ?

The virgin conception account is told from Joseph's perspective in Matthew 1:18-25, while Luke - who most likely gathers much of his information from eyewitnesses told the virgin conception account from Mary's perspective (Luke 1:1-4).

It is highly plausible thag Matthew is giving the genealogy of Joseph and Luke is following the Hebraic, traditional form of genealogies by listing only the male names in which Mary is designated by her husband's name.


Was Jacob or Heli The Father of Joseph?
(Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23)

Matthew 1:16: "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23: "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli"

In order to solve this alleged discrepancy, it must be understood that Matthew's account is giving the genealogy of Joseph while Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. This is borne out by the fact that in Matthew's account the virgin conception account is told from Joseph's perspective in Matthew 1:18-25; while Luke, who most likely gathers much of his information from eyewitnesses (including Mary) told the virgin conception account from Mary's perspective (Luke 1:1-4).

Why then is Joseph mentioned in both lists of genealogies (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23)? First, Matthew is giving the genealogy of Joseph and Luke is following the Hebraic, traditional form of genealogies by listing only the male names in which Mary is designated by her husband's name.

Hebrews used the word 'son' in different senses, referring to:
-One generation - example: Solomon was the 'son of' David - Matthew 1:6
-a remote descendant (such as a grandson, great-grandson, etc. - Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42)
-A son-in-law (1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17) *This makes sense in the context that Joseph was the 'son' (son-in-law) of Heli.
-The Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Matthew 22:24-26)
-a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father (which is what Jesus was to Joseph - Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42)

What is here so controversial?

The Jesus of John and the Jesus of Paul both pre-existed in heaven with God, both created the material universe (regardless of Genesis 1), and have unidentified parents who are nonetheless able to make them descendants of David.

Typical ignorance of how Jews kept their geneology.

The Fascinating History of Jewish Genealogy - Family History Zone

This guide takes readers on a captivating journey through the rich history of Jewish genealogy, exploring ancient origins to DNA testing.

familyhistory.zone

As I have twice tried to make to clear to you, these latter two have qualities found in gnosticism ─ pre-existing in heaven and creating the material universe, and also being representatives of a remote God who can only be reached via an intermediary, Jesus. Gnosticism is not mentioned in the texts. The traits of gnosticism are.

None of the Church Fathers had anything to do with Gnosticism.

Per most of the top scholars who've spent time defining Gnosticism — like Karen King and Michael Williams (Rethinking 'Gnosticism'):
-probably the defining characteristic of Gnosticism is the belief that the world was not created by the true God, but by a deceiving demiurge.

This bears utterly no relation to any historic views considered to be even remotely representative of the Early Church.
No relation - none - zero!

But of course that's only true of the gnostics, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John. The three synoptic Jesuses make no such claim.

Where should i start ? With Mark , Luke or Matthew?

 

[blü 2]

How do you mean five different versions , in what sense do you suggest that? State the verses,present the evidence.

First point ─ With the likely exception of Paul, we don't know who wrote the books of the NT. The gospels were written anonymously and the names were added much later.

Second point ─ As Paul says, everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head (Galatians 1:11-12). That may not be strictly correct as to various details, but eg he has no interest in a real Jesus, and his bio of a real Jesus is very brief, but in a piecemeal fashion contains the bones of the gospel of Mark, which is the template for Matthew and Luke, and much more loosely for John. Paul never mentions Jesus' parents, but says he was descended from David, so they were at least Jewish.

The gnostic elements I mentioned were Paul's claim that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that Jesus (not God) created the material universe. John's Jesus also has these two qualities. None of the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke have them.

Third point ─ Mark is the earliest gospel as such. It was written not earlier than 75 CE, four decades or so after the traditional date of Jesus' death.
Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jewish male until the apocalyptical preacher John the Baptist baptizes him, at which point the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as his son (cf Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33). He is not descended from David, and says he doesn't need to be (Mark 12:35-37).

Fourth point ─ The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke are each said to be born of a virgin. I find reasonable the idea that the author of Matthew read the OT via the Septuagint, and thus found the claim in Isaiah 7:14 that a "virgin" (Greek, parthenos) conceived and bore a child. (Of course, if you actually read that part of Isaiah, you find that parthenos translates Hebrew 'alma, which simply means 'young woman' and who in Isaiah bears the child so mentioned, who regardless has performed his small part in the plot and gone by the end of Isaiah 8. This nonsense is further compounded by two absurd and irreconcilable "genealogies" of Jesus, both for Joseph, who in these two versions is categorically NOT the father of Jesus.

Fifth point ─ the Jesus of John is, like Paul's Jesus, and unlike the three synoptic Jesuses, a being who pre-existed in heaven with God, and, Genesis notwithstanding, created the material universe.

So there you have it, three distinct models of Jesus spread across five versions of Jesus, the only vaguely credible one being that of Mark.

Nono , 'I AM' from Exodus is in Mark , one verse is enough to prove otherwise.

No, that "I am" is found only in John 9:58 ─ and if you read John 9 with ordinary diligence, you'll see that Jesus is making plain that he's the envoy of God. As John's Jesus, like Paul's, but not like the synoptic Jesuses, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe, those two Jesuses are the only two of the five who can make a claim to have existed before Abraham.

What has 'He is not descended from David' have to do 'you don't need to be' and who says that anyone has to be?

The question was whether you need to be descended from David to be the messiah. Thus Paul, Matthew, Luke and John all mention that their Jesuses are descended from David ie are qualified to be messiahs. Mark's says, I ain't and yer don't.

'Impregnetes'?
There is no such thing as 'Impregnates' in our culture.

Feel free to substitute your preferred verb for God's making the Mary of Matthew and the Mary of Luke pregnant. This is the point at which those Jesuses must have received God's Y-chromosome ─ otherwise she's be Jesa.

We cannot explain how it happend.It's impossible if you orient yourself with science.

So you agree it's a tale, it couldn't happen in reality.

Joseph accepted Jesus as his son.

That doesn't make those two Jesuses of the bloodline of David.

 

[blü 2]

Your chauvinism is causing your blindness.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

I have been born again and, unlike yourself, I live under the new covenant.

Sounds like you won't have much of a sex life ─ or am I missing something here?

 

[jimb]

So like the great majority of Christians you don't worship the god of the Tanakh.

'Born again' is an emotional state, generally fostered by one's culture. Correspondingly, to my observation it has very little intellectual content and is opposed to self-analysis and self-criticism.

But I have no argument with freedom of views regarding religion. If that's your fancy, enjoy! (But maybe be a bit careful what you say on the RF debate boards?)

I totally disagree with your statement that 'Born again' is an emotional state, since that is contrary to what the Bible clearly states...

"Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is from above [or "born again" The first is the preferred translation], he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit [a) born naturally and b) from above] he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:3-6

I believe that what Jesus said to Nicodemus is true, so "emotional state" is involved. Therefore, I believe that your observation lacks understanding, lacks intellectual merit, and is totally wrong.

Be a bit careful what you say on the RF debate boards!

 

[jimb]

Sounds like you won't have much of a sex life ─ or am I missing something here?

You are clearly "missing something". Do you think that Paul's writing merits such adolescent sarcasm?

 

[blü 2]

I totally disagree with your statement that 'Born again' is an emotional state, since that is contrary to what the Bible clearly states...

"Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is from above [or "born again" The first is the preferred translation], he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit [a) born naturally and b) from above] he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:3-6

I believe that what Jesus said to Nicodemus is true, so "emotional state" is involved. Therefore, I believe that your observation lacks understanding, lacks intellectual merit, and is totally wrong.

What then does 'being born again' involve?

What change does it bring about, other than the change in the emotional state of the relevant individual? It's certainly not a physical matter, and it's certainly not an intellectual matter, and as FitzGerald's Omar put it,

Strange, is it not, of all the myriads who
Before us passed the door of darkness through,

Not one returns to tell us of that road​

Which to discover, we must travel too.​

 

[blü 2]

You are clearly "missing something". Do you think that Paul's writing merits such adolescent sarcasm?

The only reason the world is full of living things is because they were the ones who got on with the business of breeding. The wish to copulate is found in all those who have two sexes and generate via copulation. It's the great imperative after breathing, water, food and shelter. Women and men have important differences in their physical form and their metabolism, dress differently, experience their bodies differently. As far as nature's concerned, that's all about so they can breed, and the rest is peripheral.

Our civilization sits on top of that foundation,

So tell me ─ how do you intend to pass the time in sexless eternity? What's the point? As Woody Allen is said to have said, eternity is very long, especially towards the end.

 

[jimb]

What then does 'being born again' involve?

What change does it bring about, other than the change in the emotional state of the relevant individual? It's certainly not a physical matter, and it's certainly not an intellectual matter, and as FitzGerald's Omar put it,

Strange, is it not, of all the myriads who
Before us passed the door of darkness through,

Not one returns to tell us of that road​

Which to discover, we must travel too.

It is very difficult to explain being "born of the Spirit", "born from above", "born again", etc. but I will give it a try.

I believe that every person is born with a body, mind, and spirit. However, the spirit that we are born with has been inherited originally from Adam, and passed down through the generations to our parents, then to us. Unfortunately, it is what the Bible refers to as "the sin nature", meaning that our tendency as humans is to sin, i.e., act contrary to God's will, as did Adam and Eve. So, I believe that it is necessary to have that sin nature replaced by the Holy Spirit. It is a gift from God, given to those people who desire to have a different nature than the one that they were born with. The concept is explained by Jesus when He talks with Nicodemus in John 3.

It is further elaborated by Paul in Romans 7:5-6, "For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code."

It accomplishes a lot more than a change in the emotional state of the individual. I believe that it enables her/him to lead an entirely different life, guided by the Holy Spirit that has replaced the spirit the one everyone is born with.

The quote from Fitzgerald's Omar is fairly close, as all must pass through the door of darkness (sin) into God's light.

 

[jimb]

The only reason the world is full of living things is because they were the ones who got on with the business of breeding. The wish to copulate is found in all those who have two sexes and generate via copulation. It's the great imperative after breathing, water, food and shelter. Women and men have important differences in their physical form and their metabolism, dress differently, experience their bodies differently. As far as nature's concerned, that's all about so they can breed, and the rest is peripheral.

Our civilization sits on top of that foundation,

So tell me ─ how do you intend to pass the time in sexless eternity? What's the point? As Woody Allen is said to have said, eternity is very long, especially towards the end.

Do you seriously think that this merits a reply? If you get past the sarcasm and personal insults we can discuss this further. If not, then there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

First point ─ With the likely exception of Paul, we don't know who wrote the books of the NT. The gospels were written anonymously and the names were added much later.

Second point ─ As Paul says, everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head (Galatians 1:11-12). That may not be strictly correct as to various details, but eg he has no interest in a real Jesus, and his bio of a real Jesus is very brief, but in a piecemeal fashion contains the bones of the gospel of Mark, which is the template for Matthew and Luke, and much more loosely for John. Paul never mentions Jesus' parents, but says he was descended from David, so they were at least Jewish.

The gnostic elements I mentioned were Paul's claim that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that Jesus (not God) created the material universe. John's Jesus also has these two qualities. None of the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke have them.

Third point ─ Mark is the earliest gospel as such. It was written not earlier than 75 CE, four decades or so after the traditional date of Jesus' death.
Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jewish male until the apocalyptical preacher John the Baptist baptizes him, at which point the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as his son (cf Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33). He is not descended from David, and says he doesn't need to be (Mark 12:35-37).

Fourth point ─ The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke are each said to be born of a virgin. I find reasonable the idea that the author of Matthew read the OT via the Septuagint, and thus found the claim in Isaiah 7:14 that a "virgin" (Greek, parthenos) conceived and bore a child. (Of course, if you actually read that part of Isaiah, you find that parthenos translates Hebrew 'alma, which simply means 'young woman' and who in Isaiah bears the child so mentioned, who regardless has performed his small part in the plot and gone by the end of Isaiah 8. This nonsense is further compounded by two absurd and irreconcilable "genealogies" of Jesus, both for Joseph, who in these two versions is categorically NOT the father of Jesus.

Fifth point ─ the Jesus of John is, like Paul's Jesus, and unlike the three synoptic Jesuses, a being who pre-existed in heaven with God, and, Genesis notwithstanding, created the material universe.

So there you have it, three distinct models of Jesus spread across five versions of Jesus, the only vaguely credible one being that of Mark.


No, that "I am" is found only in John 9:58 ─ and if you read John 9 with ordinary diligence, you'll see that Jesus is making plain that he's the envoy of God. As John's Jesus, like Paul's, but not like the synoptic Jesuses, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe, those two Jesuses are the only two of the five who can make a claim to have existed before Abraham.


The question was whether you need to be descended from David to be the messiah. Thus Paul, Matthew, Luke and John all mention that their Jesuses are descended from David ie are qualified to be messiahs. Mark's says, I ain't and yer don't.


Feel free to substitute your preferred verb for God's making the Mary of Matthew and the Mary of Luke pregnant. This is the point at which those Jesuses must have received God's Y-chromosome ─ otherwise she's be Jesa.


So you agree it's a tale, it couldn't happen in reality.


That doesn't make those two Jesuses of the bloodline of David.

Let us think of one undifferentiated psychic cloud that existed before the universe was created. Now whether this cloud was as a dot in the singularity or it was an infinite cloud makes no difference to the issue. Now, how did this cloud started to differentiate? we don't absolutely know but I find it interesting that the Hindu and the Christian system both talk about one God creating secondary deities to Undertake creation. As you yourself say that that Jesus existed in heaven with God should be extended to both father, son, and the Holy Ghost existing in heaven with God. But then the infinite cloud differentiated and it became father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or Father, Jesus and Spirit. But there is nothing wrong in saying that Jesus pre-existed in heaven because everything pre-existed in heaven with God. And it is also correct to say that Jesus created the material universe, although it is not correct to say that God did not create the material universe, God created the material universe through the instrument of the sun, which in turn manifested as Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

Let us think of one undifferentiated psychic cloud that existed before the universe was created.

Before the universe was created there was nowhere and notime for anything to exist, surely?

Now whether this cloud was as a dot in the singularity or it was an infinite cloud makes no difference to the issue.

But what real thing is a "psychic cloud"? For a purely conceptual thing to exist ─ and I can't see any way to excuse a 'psychic cloud' from that category ─ we need at least one real brain, which is the only place where concepts are found.

Now, how did this cloud started to differentiate? we don't absolutely know but I find it interesting that the Hindu and the Christian system both talk about one God creating secondary deities to Undertake creation.

I confess that apart from my admiration for Ganesha, I know very little of Hindu theology. However, in the bible, the Jewish God creates the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1, and in the NT the Jesuses of Paul and of John do that instead of the Jewish God, but not the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke, who don't exist until their birth in Jesus' era.

As you yourself say that that Jesus existed in heaven with God should be extended to both father, son, and the Holy Ghost existing in heaven with God.

As in my previous para.

But then the infinite cloud differentiated and it became father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or Father, Jesus and Spirit.

I can't pinpoint when the Ghost was thought of as a distinct entity instead of a manifestation or emanation of God, but it was after the NT books had all been written, though it's my impression that it was in the second or third centuries.

But there is nothing wrong in saying that Jesus pre-existed in heaven because everything pre-existed in heaven with God.

That's not so in the NT. The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God, but then they each went on to create the material universe, so reality, including humans, is in this version the work of Jesus, not of God. (God doesn't become triune until the 4th century, long after the NT books were written.)

And it is also correct to say that Jesus created the material universe, although it is not correct to say that God did not create the material universe, God created the material universe through the instrument of the sun, which in turn manifested as Jesus.

Interesting. I don't find any of that in the bible, including of course the NT.

 

[jimb]

So like the great majority of Christians you don't worship the god of the Tanakh.

'Born again' is an emotional state, generally fostered by one's culture. Correspondingly, to my observation it has very little intellectual content and is opposed to self-analysis and self-criticism.

But I have no argument with freedom of views regarding religion. If that's your fancy, enjoy! (But maybe be a bit careful what you say on the RF debate boards?)

I worship the one true God. The same God worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Which God do you worship?

You have no idea what being born again means! It is not, and never has been, "an emotional state". Your observation is entirely incorrect and therefore worthless.

 

[jimb]

Before the universe was created there was nowhere and notime for anything to exist, surely?

But what real thing is a "psychic cloud"? For a purely conceptual thing to exist ─ and I can't see any way to excuse a 'psychic cloud' from that category ─ we need at least one real brain, which is the only place where concepts are found.

I confess that apart from my admiration for Ganesha, I know very little of Hindu theology. However, in the bible, the Jewish God creates the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1, and in the NT the Jesuses of Paul and of John do that instead of the Jewish God, but not the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke, who don't exist until their birth in Jesus' era.
As in my previous para.

I can't pinpoint when the Ghost was thought of as a distinct entity instead of a manifestation or emanation of God, but it was after the NT books had all been written, though it's my impression that it was in the second or third centuries.

That's not so in the NT. The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God, but then they each went on to create the material universe, so reality, including humans, is in this version the work of Jesus, not of God. (God doesn't become triune until the 4th century, long after the NT books were written.)

Interesting. I don't find any of that in the bible, including of course the NT.

[/QUOTE]

Are you okay?

Jesus is Jesus (singular). There are no " Jesuses of Paul and of John".

There is nothing that says that Jesus created reality.

God didn't "become triune until the 4th century". He always existed in His eternal form.

Your statement that "I don't find any of that in the bible, including of course the NT" says it all. You clearly lack understanding of God's written word!

 

[blü 2]

Are you okay?

Jesus is Jesus (singular). There are no " Jesuses of Paul and of John".

Then you'll have no trouble giving me a nice clear answer to this:

Did Jesus become the son of God by adoption (Mark 1, Acts 13:33)?

Or did Jesus become the son of God when God provided the male element to Mary's ovum (Matthew, Luke)?

Or did Jesus become the "son" of God because God had created him in heaven, and allowed him to create the material universe (Paul, John)?

If you need quotes for such basic things as that, just say so.

There is nothing that says that Jesus created reality.

You really don't read your NT, do you. For a start ─

Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

God didn't "become triune until the 4th century". He always existed in His eternal form.

Nope. There is no mention of Jesus in the Tanakh ─ the idea that Jesus was the Jewish messiah is a Christian invention. No ordinary Jew would regard Jesus as a messiah, since he was neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, nor ever anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which I trust you know is what 'messiah' means, translated into Greek as khristos, whence via Latin Christ).

And as I showed you, all five versions of Jesus deny that they're God.

Your statement that "I don't find any of that in the bible, including of course the NT" says it all. You clearly lack understanding of God's written word!

No, dear friend, that's not the way to address the problem, just asserting I'm wrong. What you need to do instead is set out the quotes from the bible that you rely on, as I've done for you.

 

[jimb]

Then you'll have no trouble giving me a nice clear answer to this:

Did Jesus become the son of God by adoption (Mark 1, Acts 13:33)?

Or did Jesus become the son of God when God provided the male element to Mary's ovum (Matthew, Luke)?

Or did Jesus become the "son" of God because God had created him in heaven, and allowed him to create the material universe (Paul, John)?

If you need quotes for such basic things as that, just say so.


You really don't read your NT, do you. For a start ─

Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

​

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

Nope. There is no mention of Jesus in the Tanakh ─ the idea that Jesus was the Jewish messiah is a Christian invention. No ordinary Jew would regard Jesus as a messiah, since he was neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, nor ever anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which I trust you know is what 'messiah' means, translated into Greek as khristos, whence via Latin Christ).

And as I showed you, all five versions of Jesus deny that they're God.
No, dear friend, that's not the way to address the problem, just asserting I'm wrong. What you need to do instead is set out the quotes from the bible that you rely on, as I've done for you.

I am not your "dear friend".

The answers to your questions are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Jesus was always the Son of God. He was born in human form after being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

You wrote, "all five versions of Jesus deny that they're God". I have never read that the Bible claims to be God.

I do not have to set out the quotes from the bible that I rely on. What would be the point? To indulge your nonsensical "logic"?

I will not indulge you in your game-playing nonsense.

 

[blü 2]

I am not your "dear friend".

The answers to your questions are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

I don't regard you as a cheap friend, but that's a matter for you.

Anyway, I see you agree there are at least three distinct versions of Jesus then.

Jesus was always the Son of God. He was born in human form after being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Not, however, according to Mark. There he was an ordinary Jewish male who was baptized by JtB (Mark 1;4-7) As JtB makes clear, Jesus had not yet received the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8). There followed God's adoption of him (Mar 1:10-11) on the model of God's adoption of David (Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33).

And the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke didn't exist before their conception. This distinguishes them from the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, whom God created as heavenly beings before they went on to create the material universe.

You wrote, "all five versions of Jesus deny that they're God". I have never read that the Bible claims to be God.

The bible doesn't claim to be God and I don't suggest that in any sense it is.

All five NT versions of Jesus deny they're God, and you can read the relevant biblical quotes on this link ─ apologies once again for the clumsy form:

Jesus Failed Right?

My perspective according to the scriptures; Saul/ Paul was confronted by Jesus Christ for his persecution of those who were following Christ. Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus to spread the Gospel of grace. Paul did not change the Law, rather he demonstrated that Jesus alone fulfilled the...

www.religiousforums.com

I do not have to set out the quotes from the bible that I rely on. What would be the point? To indulge your nonsensical "logic"?

You can face up to what the bible actually says, or you can to turn away so that you can differ from it as you wish. No one will stop you.

I will not indulge you in your game-playing nonsense.

So anyone who disagrees with you is thereby speaking nonsense?

You're really unwilling to listen because you fear you might learn something you don't want to hear?

Wow! But again, that's completely a matter for you. In that case I suggest you keep to your present practice of not reading the bible for yourself, and only holding on to what your friends and ministers tell you that you want to hear.

Though I suggest that won't work very well on the debate boards here,

 

[jimb]

I don't regard you as a cheap friend, but that's a matter for you.

Anyway, I see you agree there are at least three distinct versions of Jesus then.

Not, however, according to Mark. There he was an ordinary Jewish male who was baptized by JtB (Mark 1;4-7) As JtB makes clear, Jesus had not yet received the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8). There followed God's adoption of him (Mar 1:10-11) on the model of God's adoption of David (Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33).

And the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke didn't exist before their conception. This distinguishes them from the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, whom God created as heavenly beings before they went on to create the material universe.

The bible doesn't claim to be God and I don't suggest that in any sense it is.

All five NT versions of Jesus deny they're God, and you can read the relevant biblical quotes on this link ─ apologies once again for the clumsy form:

Jesus Failed Right?

My perspective according to the scriptures; Saul/ Paul was confronted by Jesus Christ for his persecution of those who were following Christ. Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus to spread the Gospel of grace. Paul did not change the Law, rather he demonstrated that Jesus alone fulfilled the...

www.religiousforums.com

You can face up to what the bible actually says, or you can to turn away so that you can differ from it as you wish. No one will stop you.

So anyone who disagrees with you is thereby speaking nonsense?

You're really unwilling to listen because you fear you might learn something you don't want to hear?

Wow! But again, that's completely a matter for you. In that case I suggest you keep to your present practice of not reading the bible for yourself, and only holding on to what your friends and ministers tell you that you want to hear.

Though I suggest that won't work very well on the debate boards here,

I most definitely do not agree that there are at least three distinct versions of Jesus. There is one and only one Jesus Christ.

You can face up to what the bible actually says, or you can put your own spin on it. Guess which one I believe.

You wrote "So anyone who disagrees with you is thereby speaking nonsense?", which is another distortion. I disagree with you!

If you want to exchange childish insults... You are really unwilling to listen because you fear you might learn something you don't want to hear!

Finally you come out with something this stupid: "In that case I suggest you keep to your present practice of not reading the bible for yourself, and only holding on to what your friends and ministers tell you that you want to hear." Unlike yourself, I read the Bible daily and, what's more, comprehend what is written. You are the one who holds on to what your friends and ministers tell you that you want to hear.

Since you are clearly clueless and insulting, and have no desire to discuss the issue, only the person, you are now on "ignore".





Your logic is so distorted that there is no point in further discussion.

 

[Betho_br]

The Hebrew term Elohim refers to deities (e.g., Gen 35:2; Ex 18:11, Job 1:6; Ps 8:5) or magistrates (Ex 21:6; 1 Sam 2:25). The Greek term Theos (god) can also refer to the Hebrew term Elohim in the Christian Bible "New Testament" and in fact, Jesus is a Christological Elohim, the "Word" in the Quran, the Logos in John 1:1, the Tabernacle of the Divine Logos in John 1:14 and in Revelations. The Elohim Lord over all in Romans 9:5.

John 14:10 New International Version

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

The first person recorded to see this relationship was Basil the Great. The question is whether this relationship is permanent, (so the Trinity would make sense) or whether it is just a temporary mission as a Messiah (The Qur'an is right).

 

[blü 2]

I most definitely do not agree that there are at least three distinct versions of Jesus. There is one and only one Jesus Christ.

You can face up to what the bible actually says, or you can put your own spin on it. Guess which one I believe.

You wrote "So anyone who disagrees with you is thereby speaking nonsense?", which is another distortion. I disagree with you!

If you want to exchange childish insults... You are really unwilling to listen because you fear you might learn something you don't want to hear!

Finally you come out with something this stupid: "In that case I suggest you keep to your present practice of not reading the bible for yourself, and only holding on to what your friends and ministers tell you that you want to hear." Unlike yourself, I read the Bible daily and, what's more, comprehend what is written. You are the one who holds on to what your friends and ministers tell you that you want to hear.

Since you are clearly clueless and insulting, and have no desire to discuss the issue, only the person, you are now on "ignore".

Your logic is so distorted that there is no point in further discussion.

Did you actually look up those passages in Mark I mentioned in my previous post? They're the basis of what I said about the origins of Mark's Jesus, together with Acts 13:33.

Are you actually aware that the idea of a virgin birth for Jesus is not found anywhere but in Matthew and in Luke? And that the genealogies there purporting to show descent from David are for Joseph, in that version categorically NOT Jesus' father? And that the two genealogies are incompatible anyway, as well as irrelevant?

And that the idea that Jesus pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe ─ I gave you the quotes for that ─ is only found in Paul and in John?

And I gave you some of the quotes for all five Jesuses denying that they're God. Did you actually read them?

It would be singularly helpful if this time you base your response on your reading of the biblical references I've referred to, and quote biblical texts that you rely on to contradict them, since that's the argument you keep asserting but never demonstrating.

Wherever you're getting your ideas from, it's not from the text of the NT.

Oh, and if, as you say, my "logic is distorted", you've yet to offer the slightest evidence of your claim ─ mere repeated assertion not being evidence.

 

[blü 2]

I most definitely do not agree that there are at least three distinct versions of Jesus. There is one and only one Jesus Christ.

Here, mon brave ─ take a moment to listen to the views of a respected scholar on Christianity :