Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[outhouse]

I think there are two understandings of the word truth here. Truth from an academic POV is based on what is factual and I get that. But truth can be based on belief alone.

Here is a quote I picked up this morning.


“The real interest of theology is in something deeper than God, deep within God, and deep within ourselves, something older and deeper than the debates that rage up above about believing and not believing in God, in the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being.”

 

[outhouse]

Sacred texts may or may not have been divinely inspired.

No evidence points towards it at all, and all evidence points to being only man.

One would have to think "divine" could be defined as intellectually inept and primitive if we thought all biblical text was inspired.

When we look at text we see so many factual errors and contradictions, its an insult to divinity to place any amount on any of these text.


It all wreaks of man and only man, from the rhetorical prose used, the mythology, the fiction, the pseudo history, to the pseudepigraphal abuse. Why would divinity even need to be redacted ?



I have come to the conclusion that divine is another name for a person who had god in his heart [a good attitude] while writing text. Nothing more.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus is the son of God. He is God the Son. He came to earth both fully human and fully divine, but whereas his human nature had a beginning, his divine nature is eternal, having no beginning and no end.

Who is not a son of God is you and me and every being other than Jesus. He was begotten of God the Father, and we are creatures. Consider that you are human because your father is human. The formula works the same with Jesus -- He is God because his Father is God.

And Jesus never made a wrong statement. You, on the other hand, made wrong statements in every sentence of your post, because you have no understanding of Christianity.

Hmmm. That's patently not what RCC doctrine says. In the Eucharistic Prayer I for Reconciliation, we find the following: "...of your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, in whom we, too, are your sons and daughters."

 

[sojourner]

The whole "Jesus is God" thing makes zero sense to me. In the garden, why would Jesus pray to himself?

First of all, you're conflating "God" with "Father." The Son is God, and the Father is God. The Son (being fully human as well as fully Divine) prays to the Father (also fully Divine).

But even normal, healthy human beings "talk to themselves." Haven't you ever heard somebody say, "Ask yourself the follwoing question?" When problem solving, we often "work with ourselves," asking and answering. In contemplation, we learn to listen to our "inner selves."

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

humans have the potential to become God's children through baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. Before this we are God's creations but not His children. If I make a doll from clay or wood, that doll is not my child, it is my creation. If I had the power to give life to that doll and share my spirit with it then it might become my child. Since only God can share His spirit with someone then only when that happens does someone become His child.

 

[sojourner]

humans have the potential to become God's children through baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. Before this we are God's creations but not His children. If I make a doll from clay or wood, that doll is not my child, it is my creation. If I had the power to give life to that doll and share my spirit with it then it might become my child. Since only God can share His spirit with someone then only when that happens does someone become His child.

Baptism doesn't make us children of God; it acknowledges that we are children of God. Baptism isn't the only way to receive the Spirit. There are instances of Jews being Spirit-filled. How does that happen, since Jews aren't baptized?

 

[Etritonakin]

No book written by men is free of bias. If it were truly what God wrote, then the entire world would agree with its content, yet we know that is not true as there are many denominations and many faiths. Is it not possible that all might contain a kernel of that eternal truth that must be gleaned through study and understanding?

Will try to respond later

 

[Etritonakin]

It says:
Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.

The NT is a parable.

Actually, that is referring specifically what he said to the crowds.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand

 

[sojourner]

Why Jews did not believe in two persons in one , before Jesus ?
i mean why OT did not make Jews believe that Holly spirit is God ?

Which verse of Bible said clearly: God revealing Him self in three persons in one ?

It's not a matter of looking at one verse where the idea is "clearly" presented. It's a matter of taking a look at he NT and the Tradition of the church as a whole, and seeing how Jesus was presented. In nearly every instance, Jesus was treated as deific -- from the miraculous birth accounts, to the miracles, to the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension accounts.

 

[sojourner]

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children (plural) of God.

The fake gospel of John which states 'he is the only begotten son of God', is a fabricated lie, and misrepresentation of character.

According to many religions, we're in a place close to hell down here, so we're not all sons of God; allot are evil, and just don't recognize it, as everyone else is as well.

I have to seriously disagree here. Jesus is "only begotten." We are adopted. We are reconciled to God through the faith of Christ. All of us. All humanity. We are not made evil -- we're made good. That's what the bible says.

 

[sojourner]

While I agree there is an inherent duality in the Christian faith that leads, IMO, to this POV that one either has to believe or one is going to 'hell', I think you are stating untruths here. Jesus didn't say the things you state here. Men wrote the Bible and as such, any statement made by any character of the Bible is made by those men to build a religion that could control the masses. Your post seems to indicate, at least to me, a very serious bias against the Christian faith. I tend to believe that if one follows a particular faith, or none at all, that is up to the individual. Insulting them based on your bias seems unfair to me.

There are many quotes that are scholastically attributable to Jesus. I think you're being a little harsh when you say that the bible was written to "control the masses." By the time the last book was written, Christianity was still very much a religion on the fringes. Christians were, at worst, persecuted, and, at best, patently ignored by Rome (the powers that be). The "church machine," as I think you imagine it here -- the one that was deeply politically-involved -- didn't emerge until hundreds of years after the texts were written. The goal of the proto-church that wrote the texts wasn't "control," but rather "empowerment of the oppressed."

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If everyone is a child of God, then how did that happen? God made Adam from the dust of the earth. That does not make Adam God's son but only His creation just like a painting is not the child of the painter who painted the picture. We become God's children when we receive His spirit which happens at baptism.

 

[Useless2015]

If everyone is a child of God, then how did that happen? God made Adam from the dust of the earth. That does not make Adam God's son but only His creation just like a painting is not the child of the painter who painted the picture. We become God's children when we receive His spirit which happens at baptism.

Who is the father of Adam? Who gave him life?

 

[sojourner]

You might be, but me and mine are factually not from your personal belief.



Unsubstantiated rhetoric

I see where you're coming from, but be fair. The OP is a theological discussion about Jesus. Therefore, theological beliefs are going to be par for the course. What we need here is not summary dismissal of all "unsubstantial belief claims," but rather to take a good, academic and exegetical look at the sources of Jesus quotes. The fact is that the theological statements of Forever Catholic are plausible and useful for the discussion at thand, since the theology makes sense out of what has been said to be "ridiculous."

I know you understand this; I'm including this for the benefit of other readers. Unless one buys into the belief system that created or included the quotations in their texts, many of them do seem ridiculous. That's because the statements are theological statements, coming from a certain theological understanding. If one doesn't share -- or at least understand -- those particular constructions, they likely won't make sense, and that's what's happening in the OP.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Giving life is different from being a parent. A child comes from an egg and sperm which join to make a new life. God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him in a miraculous way. This does not make Adam God's son anymore than Pinochio was the real child of the man who carved him from wood. God's children are formed when He joins His spirit with a human spirit to create a new spiritual person.

 

[sojourner]

Not really. I look at this from decades of study into the topic. There is no evidence that the Bible is anything more than a book written by men who had an agenda themselves. Furthermore, how would one prove that God wrote the Bible? Did God send it by fax and write it God's self? Instead of trying to justify that Jesus was God, I try to see the bigger picture.

Wait... Didn't it fall out of the sky one day, in King James English, in a black leather cover, with gold leaf pages and words of Christ in red?

 

[sojourner]

It intimates the idea, yes. But then, ask yourself what was the point? What made the men who wrote the Bible, long after the death of this man btw, write what they did? What social influence was there? What moral influence? What historical influence? You are accepting the Bible at face value without asking the larger questions.

He's failing to actually exegete the texts. His is an eisegetical rather than exegetical approach.

 

[sojourner]

Hard to get past the first paragraph -
"...Jesus had been circumcised (Luke 2:21) and dedicated at the temple some forty days after his birth (Luke 2:22–24). He was then being called a paidion (toddler) and no longer a brephos (infant). When the Magi arrived, Jesus was already walking and was able to speak a few words as most normal children would be able to do when several months old..."

It's tyipical "mush-gospel" -- that is, trying to mush all three vastly different theological accounts into one historic event. It doesn't work that way. Essentially the writer is correct. The magi wouldn't have gotten there until Jesus was a toddler. that's not exegetically out of line. But trying to reconcile Matthew with Luke is nothing but horse hockey.

 

[sojourner]

yet scripture tells him plainly that he will not understand. The quote has already been given higher on this page in Corinthians. Some things are deeper but he will not respect those who know that but attacks. That is not right.

Bull crap. The scripture has nothing to do with academia or scholarship. It has to do with attitude. By the very virtue of your having misunderstood the text you use to support your statement, you show that you do not, in fact, "know." And it's that hubris of saying you know -- when you don't -- that is being ridiculed. Such ridicule of unsubstantiated hubris is right.

 

[sojourner]

Says you.

"Larger" in terms of critical and exegetical questions. Not "larger" in terms of theological supposition. You say you have some "knowledge" but you don't either verify that knowledge through collaboration or peer-review. You merely intimate that you "know deep stuff" and expect us to believe you. Theological supposition comes as a result of doing the foundational ground work of exegesis and critical study. From your posts, it appears you just don't have that foundation. Therefore, your theological suppositions are so much fluff.