Jesus is not God

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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

Before the universe, there was a singularity and the singularity may have been in the form of a condensed psychic cloud. Of course, we do not know what existed before singularity. But if I can rely on Stephen Hawking's singularity did exist at some point of time.

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.)

The Triune does not begin to exist if it was not known till the fourth century. So let us make a distinction between the reality and knowledge.

My understanding is that the collective unconscious from our throat, heart and navel chakras forms three psychic clouds, and these psychic clouds pre-existed the entity they pre-existed the OT, they pre-existed this world by maybe thousands of years. Only we have become conscious of their pre-existence and from my understanding, Jesus tapped into the collective unconscious emanating from the naval chakra. The father was the collected unconscious emanating from the heart chakra and the Holy Spirit was the collective unconscious emanating from the throat chakra. These emanations were always there. Only they may have been recognized in the fourth century. That is how I understand the picture.

 

[blü 2]

Before the universe, there was a singularity and the singularity may have been in the form of a condensed psychic cloud. Of course, we do not know what existed before singularity. But if I can rely on Stephen Hawking's singularity did exist at some point of time.

The Triune does not begin to exist if it was not known till the fourth century. So let us make a distinction between the reality and knowledge.

My understanding is that the collective unconscious from our throat, heart and navel chakras forms three psychic clouds, and these psychic clouds pre-existed the entity they pre-existed the OT, they pre-existed this world by maybe thousands of years. Only we have become conscious of their pre-existence and from my understanding, Jesus tapped into the collective unconscious emanating from the naval chakra. The father was the collected unconscious emanating from the heart chakra and the Holy Spirit was the collective unconscious emanating from the throat chakra. These emanations were always there. Only they may have been recognized in the fourth century. That is how I understand the picture.

My own view is the materialist one ─ that a world exists external to the self, which we know about through our senses; and that we come to understand that world, and ourselves, by reasoned enquiry, including scientific method. For me it follows that the only manner in which gods, spirits, ghosts, the whole supernatural realm, exists is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

So for me there was likely an historical Jesus ─ though we don't need one to account for the gospels ─ and that we know very little about him, though consistent elements would make him a Jewish male not from Jerusalem, a player in the Jewish religion industry who preached the coming apocalypse (popularly believed by many at that time) and a convicted troublemaker or potential troublemaker whom the Romans routinely executed by crucifixion. The unknown author of Mark, the model for the gospels, is thus I think highly likely to have written a didactic work of what to us is fiction, using the plot device of Jesus fulfilling various words of the Tanakh taken to be prophecies of Jesus, plus a scattering of facts.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

My own view is the materialist one ─ that a world exists external to the self, which we know about through our senses; and that we come to understand that world, and ourselves, by reasoned enquiry, including scientific method. For me it follows that the only manner in which gods, spirits, ghosts, the whole supernatural realm, exists is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

So for me there was likely an historical Jesus ─ though we don't need one to account for the gospels ─ and that we know very little about him, though consistent elements would make him a Jewish male not from Jerusalem, a player in the Jewish religion industry who preached the coming apocalypse (popularly believed by many at that time) and a convicted troublemaker or potential troublemaker whom the Romans routinely executed by crucifixion. The unknown author of Mark, the model for the gospels, is thus I think highly likely to have written a didactic work of what to us is fiction, using the plot device of Jesus fulfilling various words of the Tanakh taken to be prophecies of Jesus, plus a scattering of facts.

I am favorable to the materialist ideology. I was once a Marxist myself. But I found that Materialism or Marxism does not answer a large number of questions relating to psychology and that is the reason why Marxism has failed. So, once we accept that there is existence of psyche then many things follow. For example, I think you would accept that there is something called love and anger. So, what is love from a materialist standpoint? How do you define love? And once we understand that there is a psyche then only, we can understand that there are different layers of psyche of the conscious, subconscious and unconscious. So, I am not saying that we should accept the triune mindlessly. I am more influenced by the philosophy of Phillip Goff, known as panpsychism. I substance, it says that every matter, every particle has consciousness and this consciousness is beyond matter. So, there is a growing movement that materialism is inadequate explanation of reality and that is all that I can say.

 

[Dimi95]

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.

You are speaking like you were there.
We know by evidence what is probable and what is improbable.
Based on that,we know that the names qualify to be probable.
I don't want to waste my time , i can write something if you are interested to hear.

Second point ─ As Paul says, everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head (Galatians 1:11-12).

Nono , that is your conclusion.

This is Galatians 1:11-12
"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Your explenation means nothing in discussion.It is biased upfront.

That may not be strictly correct as to various details, but eg he has no interest in a real Jesus

How did you come to that conclusion?
Can you give me an example?

, and his bio of a real Jesus is very brief

This is irrelevant.You work with what you have in History , Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

Each testimony is not the same.
He doesn't have to mention his parents , he didn't know them..

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.

Paul has nothing to do with gnosticism.
Church tradition and Gnosticism are two separate entities.

Third point ─ Mark is the earliest gospel as such. It was written not earlier than 75 CE

With all due respect , this is b*******.

Ok , if Any of the Gospel is written as considered by academic consensus , why no one mentioned Paul's and Peter's death.With everything that you face as data in the NT , why no one mentioned Paul' and Peter' death as that would have culminated their ministry.We have the death of others , but there is no info about Peter' and Paul' death.If they are written after their death , it will be reasonable for me to have some kind of explenation , at least from Church tradition.We have many information from tradition , but none regarding this issue.

, four decades or so after the traditional date of Jesus' death.

The date is highl improbable , but still there is nothing closer in History.

Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jewish male until the apocalyptical preacher John the Baptist baptizes him

Mark 14 says otherwise

, at which point the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as his son (cf Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33).

Wow , that's literal interpretation.
Jesus claims to be God , in each of the Gospels.

He is not descended from David, and says he doesn't need to be (Mark 12:35-37).

False analogy

Mark 12:35-37
"While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, 'Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
"The Lord said to my Lord:
'Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet'."

David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

What is not clear in "David himself calls him 'Lord'..."?

There is nothing here about the line of David , the emphasys is on 'Lord'.

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.

I have already dicussed this with another member.
The translation of the words is not the same through time.The meaning of the words change.
In first century it means a young woman of marriageable age(It was assumed that such girls would be sexually pure, and that soon became part of the word's definition)

They are different languages.

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.

I have already answered this , i can only explain the verses in the Gospels , nothing else.

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.

I don't see that i am sorry.
It has nothing to do with my belief , it has to do with the fact that there is evidence in each Gospel.

It seems to me that you eon't use transitivity when speaking about the Gospels.
Why the literal reading?

No, that "I am" is found only in John 9:58

No it is in Mark 14 also.

─ and if you read John 9 with ordinary diligence, you'll see that Jesus is making plain that he's the envoy of God.

Jesus spoke in parables.

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.

Why do we not switch to the synoptic Gospels for change?
Where should i start ? Mark , Matthew or Luke?

The question was whether you need to be descended from David to be the messiah.

Orthodox Judaism views have generally held that the Messiah will be a patrilineal descendant of King David, and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel

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.

The verse in Mark has nothing to do with the Messiah descended from the line of King David.

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.

I don't know how that happend.
It says it is a miracle.
So that means it is not the natural way.

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

I don't know that.
There are man(y things that we don't know.

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

I have explained the geneologies of Mary and Joseph as both would be of the line of David.

 

[firedragon]

Many years I did not believe in God and had no religion. It was not until I met my wife I seen the light. You see my wife was a Born again Christian and to get on her good side I attended her Church when we first met. I started to read the Bible on my own and I was caught up in the word. When I read the Bible I did not even hear or think Jesus was ever God. It was not until I started attending Church on a regular basis the concept of a Trinity.

Well. All I see is your affection to your wife. It's rare nowadays to see this. So it's kind of kindling.

I wish you guys long life and keep going with this unity forever. Cheers. Che

 

[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).

Going through a famous website I found an answer on the forum which received the winning answer trophy. She reports that Paul wrote Hebrews 1:8 and that the verse claims Jesus is God.

Hebrews 1:8 King James Version
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God (theos in greek), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

However, when we consult the Hebrew origin we have:

The term used is Elohim, which we saw also applies to human magistrates(Ex 21:6; 1 Sam 2:25), and also to the Logos tabernacled in Christ.

It does not exclusively mean the Almighty God, but it can also mean the human Christological Elohim, that is, divine.

It is these biased translations that make me disdain this pseudo-Christianity.

 

[blü 2]

So, once we accept that there is existence of psyche then many things follow. For example, I think you would accept that there is something called love and anger. So, what is love from a materialist standpoint?

Love is a set of responses to the body's hormones, and in my view the many aspects of it that are functional in human living and breeding account for how their patterns evolved. The changes to the body at adolescence are likewise built-in hormonal programming to do with breeding, the essential element of evolution.

So you have sexual attraction, pair bonding (which is more useful with H sap than with other species because the infant is dependent and requires care for a minimum four years, usually said to be five). Then you have parent-child bonding, functionally more significant than child-parent bonding. Then you have social bonding, which is stitched in with our evolved instincts for respect for authority and loyalty to the group. This is the basis of cooperation, a major factor in human societies and their success.

And once we understand that there is a psyche then only, we can understand that there are different layers of psyche of the conscious, subconscious and unconscious.

Yes, that appears to be the case, except that I'd use the expression 'sense of self' where you say 'psyche'. It seems to me that humans are by nature emotional before they're rational, which is why reasoned enquiry as a distinct system really only blossomed with the Enlightenment, though its roots appear to lie back with the ancient Greeks, at least so far as Western culture is concerned.

So, I am not saying that we should accept the triune mindlessly. I am more influenced by the philosophy of Phillip Goff, known as panpsychism. I substance, it says that every matter, every particle has consciousness and this consciousness is beyond matter. So, there is a growing movement that materialism is inadequate explanation of reality and that is all that I can say.

I'd need to wait for a satisfactory definition of 'consciousness' and a demonstration of such 'consciousness' in subatomic particles before I could take that seriously. I think consciousness is only found in living creatures, not including microorganisms and I suspect more.

 

[blü 2]

This is Galatians 1:11-12
"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Your explenation means nothing in discussion.It is biased upfront.

I assure you I have no wish for the NT (or the Tanakh) to say any particular thing. I read them as I read other ancient documents, historical method, what, where, when, who, why?

How did you come to that conclusion?
Can you give me an example?

Scattered through Paul are the essential outline of Jesus used in Mark and the later gospels. Jesus' parents are implied but never mentioned, and we gather they're Jewish because Paul says Jesus is descended from David (which he took to be a prerequisite qualification for a messiah, like the authors of Matthew, Luke and John, whereas the Jesus of Mark is not only not descended from David but says you don't need to be). Paul also mentions in passing that Jesus had a mission to the Jews, that he inaugurated the last supper, that he was tried by the Romans and executed by crucifixion. Yet in Galatians 1 he says he spent some weeks with the Jerusalem Christian leaders, including "James the brother of the Lord", but if he learnt anything from James about the life of Jesus, he never mentions it.

Paul has nothing to do with gnosticism.
Church tradition and Gnosticism are two separate entities.

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John have the following traits also found in gnosticism : that unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke, Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, that while there Jesus created the material universe (regardless of Genesis 1), and that you need Jesus as intermediary ─ note eg John 17 ─ because like the gnostic god, God is breathtakingly remote and purest spirit and so would never create materiality.

With all due respect , this is b*******.

The traditional date of the crucifixion is 30-33 CE.

Mark wasn't written earlier than 70 CE, as made plain when his Jesus 'foretells' the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2). Mark was very likely not written earlier than 75CE, since his trial-of-Jesus scene before Pilate uses Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem in his Wars. which was not available before 75 CE.

Mark 14 says otherwise

Where?

Jesus claims to be God , in each of the Gospels.

No, Jesus nowhere claims to be God, and all five versions of him deny that they're God. I set out a sample of relevant quotes at Jesus Failed Right? .

And so on.

 

[jimb]

Since I believe what the Bible clearly says: Jesus is God, that ends the discussion as far as I am concerned.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Love is a set of responses to the body's hormones, and in my view the many aspects of it that are functional in human living and breeding account for how their patterns evolved. The changes to the body at adolescence are likewise built-in hormonal programming to do with breeding, the essential element of evolution.

So you have sexual attraction, pair bonding (which is more useful with H sap than with other species because the infant is dependent and requires care for a minimum four years, usually said to be five). Then you have parent-child bonding, functionally more significant than child-parent bonding. Then you have social bonding, which is stitched in with our evolved instincts for respect for authority and loyalty to the group. This is the basis of cooperation, a major factor in human societies and their success.


Yes, that appears to be the case, except that I'd use the expression 'sense of self' where you say 'psyche'. It seems to me that humans are by nature emotional before they're rational, which is why reasoned enquiry as a distinct system really only blossomed with the Enlightenment, though its roots appear to lie back with the ancient Greeks, at least so far as Western culture is concerned.


I'd need to wait for a satisfactory definition of 'consciousness' and a demonstration of such 'consciousness' in subatomic particles before I could take that seriously. I think consciousness is only found in living creatures, not including microorganisms and I suspect more.

Oh my,

You have to then explain how and when the hormones of love are released in the Bible. Please don't go around in circles. Let us face the problem.

On your question of Triune. Just as we are not able to define what love is, similarly, we may not be able to define what consciousness is from a materialist standpoint. I would like to know what you think of Freud, Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow and other psychologists, whether you think they are all bunk or they have some, because none of these work on the level of material in my understanding. So, I think, that you need to open up to other dimensions of existence other than material world.

 

[blü 2]

Since I believe what the Bible clearly says: Jesus is God, that ends the discussion as far as I am concerned.

Just quote me (with chapter and verse) any version of Jesus saying even just once, "I am God".

But don't both with "Before Abraham was, I am" ─ I dealt with that earlier.

 

[wellwisher]

One needs to understand the Trinity, to understand the paradox of God. The Trinity can be understood with a simple analogy. There is a man named Joe, who is a son to his parents, a husband to his wife and a father to his children. Joe is just one person based on his social security number and driver's license. But Joe has three different hats he wears, when interacting with these main three aspects of his family.

Joe is all those things, but to any given aspect of his family he is one of those things; targeted approach. He is polite, respectful and even submissive to his parents in a way he is not with his wife and children. He is intimate with his wife in a way he is not with his parents and children. He is firm, but just, in a way with his children that he not with wife and parents. In all cases, his name is still Joe, although his parents call him Joey, his wife calls him Dear, and his children call him Dad to reflect his tailored approach to them.

There is one God with three hats, with each hat sent to a given audience, spread of over time and space. Joe the Father is analogous to the Old Testament way of the law, Joe the son is the New Testament way of love, while Joe the husband is the Promise of the Spirit of truth. On any given day, people worship God through one or more of these hats, but Joe is still the same one person.

Our brain's are used to thinking in terms of differential thinking; science, where we isolate the world into its details and approach life through specialization. Whereas, God is more of an integral concept where he is part of all Creation, from the alpha to the omega. Joe is the integration, while as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he differentiated himself, over time, for the differential minds of humans to help grasp, via his pieces; hats.

Jesus said, nobody has seen the Father except the son, and to whom the Son wishes to reveal. As far as humans go, the closest to God we have come is through the expression of the Son. For all practical purpose, that is the hat of Joe, that we know, first hand, as God. The others are much more abstract, since God is much more than just humanoid like the expression called Jesus. To assume God is only humanoid, implies humans were the only chosen ones, throughout the entire universe, that God created. This leave no room for alternate life in the universe, and the God interacting with them, as say uncle Joe, to your cousins, you did not know you had. We assume just our immediate family.

The concept of Love, via the Son, is an integrating emotion, where emotional thinking can bring all diversity together as one, so there is no distinct between Jew and Gentile and all the hats of Joe; family of man and beyond.

 

[Muffled]

John 14:9, "Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? "

You must also open your mind to what the Bible says. It takes understanding.

I do know what it says: John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[Muffled]

Obviously, God does not procreate. The analogy was simply to show that humans have human sons, with human attributes. A human son is a human.
So what kind of Son would the Eternal God have? I say the One and Only Son of God is therefore Eternal as His Father. The Son of God is God with all the attributes of God His Father.

However unlike another religion we do not say that the creation is God.

 

[Muffled]

Just quote me (with chapter and verse) any version of Jesus saying even just once, "I am God".

But don't both with "Before Abraham was, I am" ─ I dealt with that earlier.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”

 

[Jimmy]

Just quote me (with chapter and verse) any version of Jesus saying even just once, "I am God".

But don't both with "Before Abraham was, I am" ─ I dealt with that earlier.

I think it’s obvious he is God along with god and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jimmy]

Just quote me (with chapter and verse) any version of Jesus saying even just once, "I am God".

But don't both with "Before Abraham was, I am" ─ I dealt with that earlier.

I didn’t know Jesus had to say something to make it true

 

[Sargonski]

I didn’t know Jesus had to say something to make it true

Well now you do ! ... just like little boy blue !

 

[Sargonski]

I think it’s obvious he is God along with god and the Holy Spirit.

Time to "I think" again !? What is obvious from the text is that Jesus is not "The Father" .. that Jesus is NOT .. the God of Jesus.. that the name of "Our Father who art in Heaven - Hallowed be thy NAME" .. is not Jesus

Now that this identity mistake has been sorted out. What in fact is the Hallowed name of "The Father" of Jesus .. as oppossed to the Father of the Pharisees ?

 

[Jimmy]

Time to "I think" again !? What is obvious from the text is that Jesus is not "The Father" .. that Jesus is NOT .. the God of Jesus.. that the name of "Our Father who art in Heaven - Hallowed be thy NAME" .. is not Jesus

Now that this identity mistake has been sorted out. What in fact is the Hallowed name of "The Father" of Jesus .. as oppossed to the Father of the Pharisees ?

Eh, keep it simple bro