Jesus is not God

[walt]

No, God can and does (and always has) dealt with people and things that are not perfect. He created the world, including all living things, and interacted with imperfect people from the garden of Eden onward.

I send You Much Christian Love and Kindness

 

[cataway]

Who are you that you would know?

me? someone that has studied scripture for fifty plus years . the JW's know things happy and willing to share all there is to know.

 

[walt]

me? someone that has studied scripture for fifty plus years . the JW's know things happy and willing to share all there is to know.

Keep up the love of scripture My Brother. Your tops in my book.

 

[Oeste]

Hi blü,

How are you? We haven't spoken in a while.

The Jesus of Mark is begotten as an ordinary Jewish male, then later God adopts him as [his] son, as [he] had earlier adopted David as his son. (He's the only one who doesn't claim to be descended from David, and in fact says a messiah doesn't need to be.) So God didn't beget him.

That would be Adoptionism, a heresy developed by Theodotus, a tanner from Byzantium (located at the entrance to the Black Sea) somewhere around the second century. It was denounced by the early Church at Nicea. It pops up in our modern era every now and then. There are even Adoptionists on this forum.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke are both begotten by the divine insemination of a virgin

Insemination requires semen, and I see no indication semen needed to be involved in the birth of Jesus. Joseph would require semen to impregnate Mary, God would not.

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John both were created in heaven by God as spiritual beings....

Not possible, as we all know that would be yet another heresy (Arianism ) as Jesus was not created.

 

[walt]

Alternatively, the claim is that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God.

The Jesus of Mark is begotten as an ordinary Jewish male, then later God adopts him as [his] son, as [he] had earlier adopted David as his son. (He's the only one who doesn't claim to be descended from David, and in fact says a messiah doesn't need to be.) So God didn't beget him.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke are both begotten by the divine insemination of a virgin. (In a farcical way, those authors provide him with hopelessly irreconcilable genealogies showing that Joseph ─ very explicitly NOT Jesus' father ─ was descended from David.) God is said to have begotten them.

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John both were created in heaven by God as spiritual beings (rather than begotten), pre-existed there with [him], created the material universe (regardless of Genesis) and came to earth in a manner in both cases undescribed, except that we're told in each case Jesus (hence his earthly father) was descended from David. So God didn't beget either of them but created them as spirit, which took earthly form when begotten through standard Jewish parents.

Do you have a scripture that shows when Jesus was adopted as a [ son ] by God?

Do you have a scripture that explains Jesus is not created like all the other Spiritual Beings in heaven? Thank You

 

[blü 2]

Hi blü,

How are you? We haven't spoken in a while.

Can't complain. And yourself?

That would be Adoptionism, a heresy developed by Theodotus, a tanner from Byzantium (located at the entrance to the Black Sea) somewhere around the second century. It was denounced by the early Church at Nicea. It pops up in our modern era every now and then. There are even Adoptionists on this forum.

Ah, heresy! Departing from the party line! But if it's a heresy, it's the heresy of the author of Mark, where exactly that is described and asserted.

Insemination requires semen, and I see no indication semen needed to be involved in the birth of Jesus.

Clearly at conception the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke received DNA from God, the only possible source of their Y-chromosomes. If a virgin is to conceive and bear a son, there must be at the very least an insemination equivalent, the biologically sufficient provision of DNA. If either of those authors had remarked how closely he resembled his mother but for the beard, that observation might be limited to the Y-chromosome, but there's no such suggestion, so it looks like each of those Jesuses got the full serve, as with human conception.

Not possible, as we all know that would be yet another heresy (Arianism ) as Jesus was not created.

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John have gnostic traits, in that Paul and the author of John state in respect of each that their Jesus created the material universe (notwithstanding Genesis) and was sent to earth by God from his dwelling in God's (very remote) heaven to be an intermediary between the material and the divine, thus allowing humans to be united with God ─ John 17 sets it out.
And each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT states that he isn't God and never claims to be God (some relevant quotes here >Jesus Failed Right?<), so like the Jesus Standard Model and the Trinity, they have no support from the NT. Of course I can understand the Sales Department demanding a single product so as not to confuse potential customers, but if we try to reduce the five models to a single version, all we get is a sixth version that doesn't agree with any of the other five.

Oh, and Mark's Jesus is said not to be descended from David and that you don't have to be, the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are said to be descended from David by spurious and irreconcilable "genealogies" which anyway are for Joseph, plainly NOT those Jesuses' father, and the Jesuses of Paul and of John are each asserted to be descended from David but we're not told how.

(One thing all the gospel Jesuses in fact have common is Jesus fighting with his mother and his family, a curious datum and perhaps via historiography's criterion of embarrassment the clearest argument for, and a glimpse of, an historical Jesus ─ Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast only John 19:26.)

 

[blü 2]

Do you have a scripture that shows when Jesus was adopted as a [ son ] by God?

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."​

This is based on Psalm 2:7, an approach affirmed in Acts 13:33.

Do you have a scripture that explains Jesus is not created like all the other Spiritual Beings in heaven? Thank You

As you can see from the Mark quote, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jewish male until his adoption (just as David was an ordinary human until his adoption as in Psalm 2:7).

The only two versions of Jesus for which a heavenly origin is claimed are the Jesus of Paul eg

1 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.​

and the Jesus of John. eg

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.

John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory that I had with thee before the world was made.​

 

[walt]

This is based on Psalm 2:7, an approach affirmed in Acts 13:33.

I think Psalms 2:7 and Acts 13:33 are referring to Jesus resurrection, not his Baptism.
Acts 13:33 ... by resurrecting Jesus...‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

Acts 13:33 God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?l 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
-Hebrews 1:5-6

And why does Hebrews 1:5-6 use the word again twice?

Why does the verse say and again I will become his father and he will become my son?

Why does verse 6 say he again brings his first born into the inhabited Earth?


Do both of these scriptures convey the thoughts that Jesus was already God's son and he was already God's firstborn?



Read John chapter 17, Jesus says to his Father in Prayer: you loved me before the foundation of the world... so glorify me at your side with the glory I had alongside you before the world was. Does this sound like an adoption? Sure sounds like they were father and son from the beginning?

"Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Jesus is referred to as God's son over 100 times in the Bible. Thanks love your comments.

 

[walt]

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."​

This is based on Psalm 2:7, an approach affirmed in Acts 13:33.


As you can see from the Mark quote, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jewish male until his adoption (just as David was an ordinary human until his adoption as in Psalm 2:7).

The only two versions of Jesus for which a heavenly origin is claimed are the Jesus of Paul eg

1 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.​

and the Jesus of John. eg

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.​

​

John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory that I had with thee before the world was made.​

..

 

[blü 2]

I think Psalms 2:7 and Acts 13:33 are referring to Jesus resurrection, not his Baptism.
Acts 13:33 ... by resurrecting Jesus...‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

Mark's Jesus is adopted, being declared the son of God (rendered 'Thou art my beloved Son' in RSV, 'You are my Son, the Beloved' in RNSVue.)

For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?l 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” -Hebrews 1:5-6

I don't see how that affects what I said. My whole point is that the versions do NOT agree on various matters.

 

[walt]

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."​

This is based on Psalm 2:7, an approach affirmed in Acts 13:33.


As you can see from the Mark quote, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jewish male until his adoption (just as David was an ordinary human until his adoption as in Psalm 2:7).

The only two versions of Jesus for which a heavenly origin is claimed are the Jesus of Paul eg

1 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.​

and the Jesus of John. eg

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.​

​

John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory that I had with thee before the world was made.​

Jesus Prays:

John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come.

3 This means everlasting life,e their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

24 Father, I want those whom you have given me to be with me where I am, in order that they may look upon my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.

Is there any reason we should not believe each one of these words in Jesus prayer with his Father? Thank you for your patience.


Do you agree with these words in Jesus prayer to his Father?

 

[walt]

Mark's Jesus is adopted, being declared the son of God (rendered 'Thou art my beloved Son' in RSV, 'You are my Son, the Beloved' in RNSVue.)

I don't see how that affects what I said. My whole point is that the versions do NOT agree on various matters.

• Is declaration the same as adoption ?
• "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." --Mark / Besides, How is either one ?

Very good points you make, the verse in Mark uses the word Son, but does not mention adoption specifically on the day of his baptism,

The New Testament uses the word Son for Jesus and Father for God over 100 times.

 

[Oeste]

The Son of God is God precisely because he is the Son of God.
The Son of Man is Man precisely because he is the Son of Man
The Son of Dog is Dog precisely because he is the Son of Dog.
The Son of Frog is Frog precisely because he is the Son of Frog.

If you have any biblical illustrations where frogs, dogs and men can BEGET anything but frogs, dogs and men, feel free to share this with readers.

I see your reasoning here. Right now the only thing I would like to say is that it seems that because Jesus said he was the Son of God, some of his listeners thought he was saying he was God which was blasphemy as far as they were concerned .
Then Jesus quoted for them from the Psalm which said they were gods.

I believe I see your reason as well, however, we should not get the impression that Jesus is calling, equating, or making himself "a god". He's simply stating that the corrupt Judges of Israel were are called gods, do calling himself God is not a blasphemous crime.

After all, they are called "gods" and "sons of the most High", but never the begotten son of God.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus Prays:

John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come.

3 This means everlasting life,e their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

24 Father, I want those whom you have given me to be with me where I am, in order that they may look upon my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.

Is there any reason we should not believe each one of these words in Jesus prayer with his Father? Thank you for your patience.

This is the Gnostic model of Jesus, used by Paul and the author of John, the Jesus who pre-existed in heaven with God, who created the material universe (because the Gnostic God was such pure spirit that it was unimaginable that [he]would create anything material) and whom God sent to earth.

Do you agree with these words in Jesus prayer to his Father?

Growing up, I had some grounding in Episcopalianism, but from my mid-teens I was a materialist and these days I'm also an igtheist. My concern is not with believing this version or any other, but with my historical interest in ancient documents and the when, where, what, who and why of them.

 

[blü 2]

• Is declaration the same as adoption ?
• "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." --Mark / Besides, How is either one ?

Very good points you make, the verse in Mark uses the word Son, but does not mention adoption specifically on the day of his baptism,

Mark's Jesus was not the son of God at his baptism. But after his baptism, Mark says the heavens opened and God declared that Jesus was [his] son. He wasn't before but thereafter he was. The text looks like it was modeled on Psalm 2:7 regarding David ─

I will tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have begotten you.​

and as I mentioned, the author of Acts 13:33 agrees with that view.

The New Testament uses the word Son for Jesus and Father for God over 100 times.

As I mentioned earlier, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in Heaven and created the material universe, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke was born of a divinely inseminated virgin, hence each was a literal son of God, and the Jesus of Mark was the son of God only by adoption. While none of the versions is credible as history, I suspect that any neutral onlooker would conclude that Mark's version is the closest thing there to one.

 

[walt]

This is the Gnostic model of Jesus, used by Paul and the author of John, the Jesus who pre-existed in heaven with God, who created the material universe (because the Gnostic God was such pure spirit that it was unimaginable that [he]would create anything material) and whom God sent to earth.



Growing up, I had some grounding in Episcopalianism, but from my mid-teens I was a materialist and these days I'm also an igtheist. My concern is not with believing this version or any other, but with my historical interest in ancient documents and the when, where, what, who and why of them.

I will look at your info tomorrow, very tired. Thx. so much for your kindness and comments.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the Gnostic model of Jesus, used by Paul and the author of John, the Jesus who pre-existed in heaven with God, who created the material universe (because the Gnostic God was such pure spirit that it was unimaginable that [he]would create anything material) and whom God sent to earth.

Baha'is believe that the soul of Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that God sent the soul of Jesus to earth, and Jesus was then born on earth in a physical body just like everyone else. The difference is that His soul was pre-existent and our souls are not. They come into existence at the time of conception.

 

[cataway]

Baha'is believe that the soul of Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that God sent the soul of Jesus to earth, and Jesus was then born on earth in a physical body just like everyone else. The difference is that His soul was pre-existent and our souls are not. They come into existence at the time of conception.

which means they also go out of existence when one dies

 

[walt]

Baha'is believe that the soul of Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that God sent the soul of Jesus to earth, and Jesus was then born on earth in a physical body just like everyone else. The difference is that His soul was pre-existent and our souls are not. They come into existence at the time of conception.

Their is another thing we agree on!

 

[walt]

This is the Gnostic model of Jesus, used by Paul and the author of John, the Jesus who pre-existed in heaven with God, who created the material universe (because the Gnostic God was such pure spirit that it was unimaginable that [he]would create anything material) and whom God sent to earth.



Growing up, I had some grounding in Episcopalianism, but from my mid-teens I was a materialist and these days I'm also an igtheist. My concern is not with believing this version or any other, but with my historical interest in ancient documents and the when, where, what, who and why of them.

I am happy you are learning about the things that interest you, it sounds like you have a lot of knowledge about it.

Mark's Jesus was not the son of God at his baptism. But after his baptism, Mark says the heavens opened and God declared that Jesus was [his] son. He wasn't before but thereafter he was. The text looks like it was modeled on Psalm 2:7 regarding David ─

I will tell of the decree of the LORD:​

He said to me, “You are my son;​

today I have begotten you.​

and as I mentioned, the author of Acts 13:33 agrees with that view.



As I mentioned earlier, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in Heaven and created the material universe, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke was born of a divinely inseminated virgin, hence each was a literal son of God, and the Jesus of Mark was the son of God only by adoption. While none of the versions is credible as history, I suspect that any neutral onlooker would conclude that Mark's version is the closest thing there to one.

I see your point, but I don't separate the books in the bible, to me all the books reveal some truth, that helps shape my beliefs. I read to look for agreement. but I am sure everyone finds different things interesting?
I use this scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. NIV

Also: John 17:17, Luke 8:21,

Much love and Respect