Oeste
Well-Known Member
Understood, Unveiled Artist. It may be "just your opinion" but it has value. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So Jesus is not God?
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
Understood, Unveiled Artist. It may be "just your opinion" but it has value. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
In Paul's terminology, also found elsewhere in the NT, one Lord (Jesus) carefully distinguished from one God (Yahweh aka the Father).
That would be much better answered by someone Jewish. But for what it's worth, the God of Judaism has a variety of names, the tetragrammaton being one, Adonai being another, El being an old one, and Father (once) and no doubt Lord.
No, that won't tell you anything about Jesus ─ Jesus isn't mentioned in the Tanakh.
In the same book he adds that he's the source of evil (Isaiah 45:7) ─
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.
which when you think about it must be correct, there being no other possible source.
There are different gods earlier ─ Judges recognizes Chemosh, for example, and you shall have no other gods before me, NOT and there ain't no other gods. The polytheism, if memory serves, faded out around the time of the Captivity.
That's why Jesus says he worships him, as you saw in those quotes I gave before.
Easy. The usage of 'Lord', like Latin Dominus, Greek kurios, French sieur (whence English sir), German Herr, Russian gospodin, all can translate as 'Lord' ─ it's a very general term of respect.
Because Paul said so, for a start.
Well, in John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one", but as he goes on to explain in John 17:20-23, that's in a way that anyone can be one with the Father; he adds that he hopes everyone will.
Jesus? There's no Jesus in Isaiah. Or anywhere else in the Tanakh.
In effect you're saying that Jesus misspoke with every one of those quotes I gave you. So, you say, nothing in the NT can be trusted if said by Jesus, since if he gets his own identity wrong, he could get anything wrong.
And although the Trinity is what you're essentially arguing for, you didn't address its historical origins ─ it didn't even exist in Jesus' times, which is why it's nowhere in the NT ─ nor the incoherence of the doctrine itself, which as I pointed out even the churches admit.
Please do so.
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
So Christians have two Lords even though scripture tells us there is ONE Lord, and Jesus was suggesting the Jews declare him spiritual Lord when the Pentateuch declares it’s Yahweh?
I’m not aware of any current age Christian denomination or sect which declares they have two Lords and certainly no Messianic Jews doing the same. Even the Baha’i, to the best of my knowledge, do not hold to two Lords and I consider their theology pretty malleable.
But let’s look at the two verses you cited again:
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.
or Philippians 2
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
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.
or Philippians 2
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
First, Paul does not differentiate or distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh. He differentiates between Jesus and the Father. There is no Tetragrammaton at 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Second, Does Paul say “ONE Lord, Jesus Christ”, or “TWO Lords, Jesus Christ and Yahweh”? He declares “ONE Lord”, and not “a Lord”. Your interpretation has Paul explicitly denying Yahweh as Lord which is complete nonsense!
Third, let’s look at Phiippians 2:11. Again Paul does not differentiate between Jesus and Yahweh, but Jesus and God the Father. No Tetragrammaton appears here.
Yahweh is still LORD. The Old Testament explicitly states this, time and time again. Paul is not asking the Corinthians or the Jews or anyone else to declare a brand new Lord, but he is definitely stating the One Lord of the Pentateuch is the One Lord we acknowledge now.
Otherwise, he would have told us to give praise to our Lords (plural), Yahweh and Jesus, to the glory of the Father.
Once again we see scripture fall place easily when Jesus is God, and how we create a total wreck when he's not.
In your mind, does calling God "El" give us one God while calling God "Adonai" give us another, or can they both refer to one God?
Likewise, does calling Jesus "Lord" give us one Lord while calling Yahweh "Lord" give us another or can they both refer to one Lord?
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.( Isaiah 43:11)
That was the Old Testament Blü. Now we take a quote from Jesus:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.(Matthew 5:17)
The Jews did not accept Christ as Lord, and they certainly didn’t accept him as Savior. Yet Jesus is here to fulfill the Law and become Savior. That was the mission.
Mankind, according to both Jewish and Christian theology, has ONE Lord and ONE Savior, not two. Jesus did not come to destroy or replace the Old Lord (Yahweh) but to fulfil the promise of Savior (Yahweh)
How do you explain this if Jesus is not God?
Again, it;s very easy when Jesus is God, hard as heck when he’s not.
Interesting non-responsive answer that looks like a gaping rabbit hole. Do you agree the Old Testament states Yahweh is Lord and apart from Him there is no Savior? And if so, exactly who is Jesus saving according to NT scripture?
Oeste
Well-Known Member
These gods were judged by Yahweh, along with the corrupt Judges themselves.
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
They were false “gods”.
Despite the presence of these false “gods” of sticks, stones and men there is still One Lord, One God, One Savior which begs the question: How is Jesus our one Lord when Yahweh was and always is?
Perhaps Yahweh and Jesus take turns…First Yahweh is Lord, then Jesus is Lord, then maybe Yahweh again? Of course, for those who believe Yahweh is not eternally our one Lord and Savior, then you probably believe Yahweh is not eternally our God. Is this correct?
Again, how do Christians, who believe “Jesus is not God” resolve this theological quandary? I really don’t know (which is why I ask) and I just don’t see how they can. It’s a quandary.
It’s not just that these gods “ain’t” for Christians Blu, it’s that they’re false. This is true whether you place “a god” before Him, after Him, beside Him, on top of Him, or underneath Him. All gods are false gods.
Correct! The early Jews practiced a form of polytheism called monolatry or henotheism.
Jesus, as the Son of Man worships the Father, but Jesus as the Son of God worships nobody.
Earlier you claimed TWO Lords, now you claim many???
Scripture does not tell us we have “A” Lord” but “ONE” Lord! Read the scripture again!! How in heaven could a German Herr be declared our ONE Lord when Jesus eternally is?
This is “reasoning” I expect from a Watchtower magazine. If you’re using their pamphlets as study guides leave them where they are. Calling someone “a Lord” might be respectful, but calling somebody our ”One Lord” is a claim to deity.
Paul did say that but obviously not for the reason you gave above.
We can take the easy way and simply admit scripture declares Jesus is God, or take the hard way and say it does not. “Jesus is God” harmonizes scripture, while “Jesus is not God” utterly destroys even the faintest vestige of thematic reasoning.
Indeed, but that still leaves us with two Lords, two Saviors, or essentially one too many.
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.( Isaiah 43:11)
Scripturally, is Jesus Savior of the gentiles only, or do we have two Saviors, like we have two Lords? Perhaps it’s Yahweh for the Jews, and Christ for the Gentiles? If so, why did Jesus bother preaching to the Jews?
But this is interesting. Your argument that "Jesus is not God" is better supported if you also claim "Jesus is not our Savior", and all our Christian “Jesus is not God” friends are totally silent and content on the issue.
If that doesn’t make the point of my thread I don’t know what does.
Exactly!
Jesus and the prophets misspoke every quote, but ONLY if Jesus is not God. That is the whole point of this thread. I’m not picking on you Blu, but the verses you quoted which purport to show Jesus is not God gives us a great vehicle to show why he is.
It’s like “plot”. You may not find the word “plot” in most stories, but that doesn’t mean the plot isn’t there. I know you’re not a fan of the Watchtower, but this “’Trinity’” is not found in the bible” sounds very Watchtower-ish. I’m not sure why you would proffer it as viable.
I’ve never equated the mystery inherent to an infinite God with “incoherence” and I don’t recall any traditional church describing God as “incoherent” in their doctrine. Of course, this is the age of the internet and you can shop a lot of churches on-line, so perhaps you did find one.
What I did state is that if your God holds no mystery, if he looks like Zeus or Odin, then your God is not God.
74x12
Well-Known Member
To emphasize the humanity of Jesus; ascended on high above all things and having the name above all names. Fulfilling the prophecies that man would be set over all creation. That all things would be put under His feet. (Psalm 8) Making Him(the Son of man) Lord of all.
But that doesn't mean He is not God manifest. See Colossians 2:8-9
God in Christ was doing everything so that all of our enemies would be His own enemies also and He could defeat them for our sakes.
Because unless God was also the Son of man; God would never have to face humanity's enemies. God would never have to die, or face temptation etc.
That is why Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God (in human form) until all His enemies are put under His human feet.
Basically, He did everything for us. That is why God was incarnate in the Son. To be our Savior. It's really very simple from God's perspective. God wants His family back.
Jesus is Joshua; so the name is definitely there. The prophecies of Jesus are there also and there is a lot of them.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
This is a continuation to some of the "proof-texts" you cited, purportedly to show Jesus is not God:
Correct. We have already established that Jesus is Lord. “The Lord is one”, not two Lords. So the Lord our God is the same Lord, the one Lord, Jesus.
These verses HARMONIZE Blü, but ONLY if Jesus is God.
Dual nature…Jesus is both Son of God (which means he’s God) and Son of Man (which means he’s man). The Son of Man does not know the day and hour. In fact, the Son of Man must constantly and consistently rely on the Father and not be tempted, as he was by the devil, to take a “short-cut” by calling forth his Deity as Son of God.
Another verse which shows JESUS IS GOD!
Jesus responded WHY do you call me good? This is a question to the ruler. You’ll notice immediately it doesn’t say “DON’T call me good.” That would be a statement (the one you’re looking for, which doesn’t exist).
Jesus continues…”No one is good but God alone”. This is absolutely true, but that doesn’t disqualify Jesus as God.
Remember Blu, we are accepting scripture as authoritative in order to understand the Christians perspective. Your argument makes Jesus no good, so the question now becomes: How did a perfectly no-good Jesus die for our sins?
The question can’t be answered if Jesus is not good because a no-good Jesus can’t possibly die for our sins. However, it can be easily answered if Jesus IS good. And of course we know “No one is good but God alone”.
The inescapable conclusion, once we accept scripture as authoritative, is that Jesus is God. This is a good example to show how the church relied on exegesis rather than proof texts to arrive at sound doctrine..
Jesus was qualified to be our Redeemer because he was good, and only God is good.
Correct. We have already established that Jesus is Lord. “The Lord is one”, not two Lords. So the Lord our God is the same Lord, the one Lord, Jesus.
Jesus is not the Father (quoted verse), but Jesus is Lord (1 Corinthians 8:1 which you quoted above), and the Lord is God (Isaiah 43:11).
These verses HARMONIZE Blü, but ONLY if Jesus is God.
Dual nature…Jesus is both Son of God (which means he’s God) and Son of Man (which means he’s man). The Son of Man does not know the day and hour. In fact, the Son of Man must constantly and consistently rely on the Father and not be tempted, as he was by the devil, to take a “short-cut” by calling forth his Deity as Son of God.
Another verse which shows JESUS IS GOD!
Jesus responded WHY do you call me good? This is a question to the ruler. You’ll notice immediately it doesn’t say “DON’T call me good.” That would be a statement (the one you’re looking for, which doesn’t exist).
Jesus continues…”No one is good but God alone”. This is absolutely true, but that doesn’t disqualify Jesus as God.
Remember Blu, we are accepting scripture as authoritative in order to understand the Christians perspective. Your argument makes Jesus no good, so the question now becomes: How did a perfectly no-good Jesus die for our sins?
The question can’t be answered if Jesus is not good because a no-good Jesus can’t possibly die for our sins. However, it can be easily answered if Jesus IS good. And of course we know “No one is good but God alone”.
The inescapable conclusion, once we accept scripture as authoritative, is that Jesus is God. This is a good example to show how the church relied on exegesis rather than proof texts to arrive at sound doctrine..
Jesus was qualified to be our Redeemer because he was good, and only God is good.
Whether or not that's correct, it's just a technicality. Paul clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God.
MY interpretation? I didn't write the thing. Here, read it for yourself:
1 Corinthians 8
8:6 ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
which (as I've put in bold) says 'one god [theos] the father' and 'and one lord [kurios] Jesus Christ.Philippians 2:11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός
Same again: 'lord Jesus Christ' and 'god [the] father'.I told you before, in polite or deferential parlance, any respected person (or entity) can be called 'Lord' or 'Sir' or 'Master' or 'Boss' or any other suitable term. It's NOT a big deal.
AND the context of the NT is entirely different to the context of the Tanakh, where no Jesus complicates things.
AND if you have an argument with what Paul said, take it up with Paul, or else state clearly, I don't like what Paul said, so I'm going to ignore it.
That doesn't make Jesus God. As Jesus himself said, he's God's envoy, and has only such powers as God allows him, none in his own right, and that the Father is 'the only true God' and that Jesus worships the Father as his own God.
How much clearer do you want him to make his own position?
And would you please explain to me why you'd expect Jesus to be God ─
(a) when he clearly and repeatedly says he isn't, and
(b) no notion that he might be was around in the period he's said to have lived, nor for the next gcouple of hundred years, and
(c) the doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent anyway?
instead of trying to compare the wholly Jesus-free Tanakh context to the Jesus-to-the-brim NT context.
Please?
PS
Goodness, you've put on more replies while I've been writing this!
So just explain your position on the three points above, and when that's cleared up we can go on to your other points.
But the idea that Jesus was God doesn't appear in the history of the early church until (vaguely) in the 3rd century, with the Trinity doctrine emerging by the end of the 4th.
Why would you expect to find it in the NT, where there's no sign of it?
And where Jesus repeatedly denies that he's God, says he has no powers except those God allows him, says that the Father is the 'only true God', and adds that he himself worships the Father.
And the Trinity doctrine is, according to the RCC and the Anglo/Piscos and no doubt others, 'a mystery in the strict sense', which is their way of admitting it's incoherent.
It leads to the nonsenses that I pointed out to Oeste, that since Jesus' father is God, and in the Trinity doctrine each of the three persons is 100% of God, Jesus is his own father, and the Ghost is also Jesus' father, and even the Father is Jesus' father, but it makes no sense to single him out as the Father.
And if Jesus is God then on the cross, according to Mark and Matthew, he cried out, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me'?
Last edited:
74x12
Well-Known Member
I agree with you about the trinity concept which is not correct. Trinitarians say "three in one" I say "these three are one". But Jesus never denies He is God. And we know Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 on the cross.
As for why Jesus would quote Psalm 22; the reason may have been because in a way God did have to forsake Him so that He could die. In other words, God had to remove His protection for that moment. As Jesus Himself claimed; He had to willingly give up His life because no one had power to take it from Him. (John 10:18)
This is also seen in all the gospels how that Jesus was not afraid of any threats. (Luke 13:31-32) Because Jesus knew it was not yet His time to die. In other words the protection of God would keep Him safe no matter what until that time came. (Matthew 4:6)
The problem runs deeper than that. In a previous post I quoted to Oeste from the 'Trinity' entry in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (with which the net's Catholic Encyclopedia, under 'Trinity' and .'Mystery', agrees):
This doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.
That is, the doctrine is incoherent ─ one more excellent reason why, had it existed in Jesus' day, he would not have subscribed to it. In fact it doesn't take its shape until late in the 4th century CE.
Yes, he does, again and again. The more pertinent point is that he never claims to be God ─
Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”
John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”
John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”
John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.
John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”
John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
To which we can add Paul &c ─Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”
John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”
John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”
John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.
John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”
John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
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.
Philippians 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
That seems extremely plain: Jesus states that he's God's envoy (eg John 5:30), has no powers beyond those that God allows him (eg John 5:30, 6:38, 8:42), declares God 'the only true god' (eg John 17:3), and the god that Jesus himself worships (eg John 20:17).Philippians 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
That might be reasonable for Jesus to do. It would be silly for God to do it.
If he were God he could alter the situation any time, any instant, he pleased. It only makes sense if he couldn't.
In John 10:18 Jesus once again explicitly emphasizes that he isn't God, and that it's God's power, not his own, that's being used.
Yes, it was the protection of God, not any power Jesus himself possessed.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
In the verses you cited he distinguishes not between Jesus and God but Jesus and the Father. Earlier you stated “Yahweh, aka the Father” when it should be “Yahweh, aka Jesus”. Jesus is Yahweh. There is one Lord forever in the Old Testament and, one Lord forever in the New, but there are no Lords but Lord.
Yes, your interpretation. No one declares two Lords. One Lord? Yes. Two Lords? No.
I don't see your interpretation harmonizing with any church's teaching, let alone scripture.
We are not talking about earthly Lords. Scripture refers to Yahweh as our spiritual Lord. Christ is called our spiritual Lord. Scripture also goes to great pains to declare ONE Lord, and not Lords, both in the New and Old Testament.
Scripture tells us there is one Lord for believers just as the Constitution tells us there is one President of the United States.. There is always one President and the idea there is not one President but several because there are Presidents in Argentina, Mexico or currently living in the Unites States is immaterial. The same logical analysis of the Constitution works in our analysis of scripture. There is one Lord and one Lord only for the believer. The fact there is a Lord somewhere in Germany is immaterial if he is not the same one Lord of scripture. The constitution does NOT teach multiple Presidents for the United States any more than scriptures teaches multiple Lords for believers. Scripture is clear, we cannot serve two masters, so yes, it IS a big deal because any such teaching would be considered heretical.
Now about your tone…I consider it extremely polite and refreshingly deferential. I don’t say that lightly. We are both arguing based on the veracity and authenticity of scripture. It is a position I espouse but it’s something you don’t agree with. The ability to put skeptism away and “get in the trenches” with an argument, IMO, either belies unusual intellect or empathy.
As for me, I’m not here to try and “prove” Jesus is God. Proof has never been a requirement for anything except mathematics. Instead, I am giving evidence (scripture) and support (arguments/analysis) for my position. I then invite scrutiny. If the argument stands, great! If it falls then I’ve learned from it, everyone reading it has learned, and we all benefit through growth. This is all I’m asking of others. As I stated before, I don;t not have all the answers or even the correct ones. But what I do have is evidence to support my position.
Unfortunately, few here invite scrutiny. Instead the general practice is to posit “proof texts” which stand alone and in a vacuum. If one proof text says one thing and another proof text says another, so what? As long as the proof text supports whatever your claiming at the moment, who cares? There is no attempt to harmonize or reconcile one interpretation of scripture with the other interpretation the same poster gave a moment ago because each one stands alone in order to prove a point. There are no consequences for a given argument because the consequences of what logically flows forth from a particular argument are never discussed.
Instead, when the proof-text is stressed or challenged it’s immediately abandoned and a new proof-text is inserted in its place so the process can begin all over again. No real discussion, analysis or thematic harmonization takes place. But here, we are starting not with my assertion that Jesus is God, but with another that he is not, and I'm just trying to see how much mileage I get with a test drive.
Of course it's one thing to ask other to invite scrutiny and another to ask it of yourself. So here is an argument I invite comment on. Perhaps some will feel more comfortable with this than Romans 5:8:
Yahweh is Lord. He is Lord forever. The Old Testament declares this. Jesus is Lord. He is Lord forever. The New Testament declares this. Neither Old Testament nor the New declares a German Herr or English Lord our one “Lord” so the concept of other “Lords” is immaterial. If you disagree with this, see my discussion of Presidents above.
Unlike the process set forth in the constitution there was never a heavenly competition to elect a new Lord. We know this because of what the Old Testament declares: Yahweh is Lord and He shares His glory with no one. Since we know we cannot have two Lords or masters the only conclusion we can reach that effectively and totally resolves the issue is that Jesus is Yahweh. This solves and harmonizes scripture without two Masters or hint of conflict and we arrive at the conclusion Jesus is God without any mention of the word “Trinity”. Specific scriptures which support Yahewh is Lord, Jesus is Lord, there is only one Lord, that Yahweh doesn't share His glory, and that we can't serve two masters can be provided upon request.
It’s really that simple. The idea "Jesus is God" didn't magically arrive in the 3rd century, it was there, from the beginning and logically derived from scripture. This is why, even though I am Trinitarian, I didn’t want to distract readers with a discussion of the Trinity or some ill-informed, cult promoted nonsense about the Council at Nicea.
No, it’s the same Lord in the Old Testament as it is in the New, same God in both, same Savior in both. Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Law and I’m not aware of any Christian Christology stating otherwise. Whether there are non-Messianic Jews, Muslims or atheists who consider the NT invalid is not of concern because we are accepting both Testaments as valid for the sake of discussion.
That's a big "If" that we don't have to worry about. I am no anti-Pauline and have no disagreement with Paul. My argument is with your assertions, not Paul.
Agreed, and no one claims it did. That would be proof-texting. We’re going beyond that here. When Jesus states he came not to destroy but fulfill the Law he is telling his audience that it is He who comes to redeem mankind from the curse of the Law. As such, he is identifying himself as the very same Savior you claim isn't found in the Tanakh.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I would consider this reasoning flawed for the following reason:
In the wilderness, Satan tempted a hungry Jesus to turn stones into bread.
Obviously Jesus can’t turn anything to bread if he has to make a phone call and tempt the Father to turn stones into bread for him. Jesus must rely entirely on the Father and can do nothing of his own accord. That’s the deal.
Besides, I can’t change stones. You can’t do it, and since Jesus is a man he can’t turn stone into bread either.
Jesus has power, as the Son of God (and not as the Son of Man) to change bread into stones all day long. This is the ONLY way the temptation makes any sense.
This is the dual nature of Christ. Satan asked the Son of Man, “If you are really the Son of God then turn these stones into bread.” Remember, this is a temptation of Jesus, and not of the Christ & the Father. There is no way Satan can tempt or attempt to tempt the Father through Jesus.
Satan was asking Jesus as Son of Man to call upon himself (not the Father) as Son of God to feed himself. It is the Son of God that has the power, not the Son of Man. So of course Jesus has power in his own right. Satan was tempting Jesus to use it. In other words, you can’t be tempted to walk through the walls of a bank if you don’t have the ability to do so.
Of course, if you have a logically consistent and/or coherent explanation that goes beyond mere “proof-texts” that explains how Jesus was tempted to do something he couldn’t possibly do, I’m all ears. That goes for all the other “Jesus is not God” Christians here.
He’s made his position very clear. The problem is you haven’t shown Paul’s position to be your own.
Christ is the Savior of mankind. You can’t be Savior if you’re bad Blu, you can only be Savior if you’re good, and Jesus clearly stated only God is good.
I would love to discuss this more with our Christian “Jesus is not God” friends, but I’m afraid the only think I’ll hear are the crickets chirping. Apparently the mileage derived from “proof-texting” is extremely limited.
No notion? The Jews certainly took more than a notion…they took up stones! How can you now say “there was no notion”???
We’re focusing on the issue of whether Jesus is God which does not necessarily entail a Trinity. In fact, there are posters on this thread who believe as I do but don’t believe in the Trinity at all. II see as I write this that you've met him (her?). More specifically we’re using Romans 5:8 as our vehicle.
LOL, I know you want to get to the Trinity. I just have a lot of work to do and MUST get my work done. But I’ll be on vacation soon and after that I’ll start a thread specifically on the Trinity. You’ll receive notice as I’ll be quoting your comments.
However, before we get to the Trinity it’s better to have a good grasp of how the church arrived at the consensus Jesus is God. If your conclusion is that “the entire church went apostate” in the 3rd century because someone brought in a picture of a 3 headed God and said “Let us worship this 3 headed God” then we’re not going to get very far. The Trinity was a doctrine developed to protect the church from a rising number of heresies, some quite weird, concerning the nature of Christ. Had the heresies not developed there would have been no need for a doctrine to address the heresy. The doctrine developed late because the heresies developed late. If the heresies had developed earlier the doctrine would have developed earlier. It’s really that simple.
You’ve made the commentary stimulating. That’s not bad but good news Blü!
And while I give kudos to HockyCowboy for his attempted answer, it appears that all our Christian fundamentalist “Jesus is not God” friends fled as soon as they realized they couldn’t address the OP. Instead, they’ve had to sit on the sidelines hoping upon hope that you could carry the argument for them.See above, and thank you for the conversation. As for the others it appears the crickets still chirp.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Again I'm not trintiarian. I am well aware that trinitarians claim the trinity is a mystery. The trinity doctrine really is hard to explain. I've had it explained carefully to me and I understand it more than many trinitarians themselves. I just don't agree with it.
So? Jesus doesn't deny He is God here.
Jesus is the Son of man. He's talking as the Son of man. But notice according to the scriptures humans are not just flesh. We're not just bodies. We have souls and spirits. The Spirit in Jesus was God.
Again the human Jesus did not know.
A question. To provoke thought. If Jesus is not good then He can't be the "spotless" Lamb of God.
Although Jesus certainly doesn't advertise the thought that He is God manifest; yet He doesn't deny it either.
The point here is to understand what John means in the light of all the scriptures. John was certainly not contradicting the Jewish scriptures where people definitely see something.
Here are 3 really obvious examples of when they "saw" God.
- Ezekiel 1:26-28
- Isaiah 6:1
- Exodus 24:10
All of this goes back to the true God: Adonai of Israel.
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33:20)
And this is why when God did appear He would do so hidden in a cloud. This cloud is commonly mistaken as the "glory of God" but it is really the "hiding of His glory". The Shekinah "glory" is the cloud that God's glory is hidden in.
But in 1 Timothy 6:14-16 we see that it is Jesus who will "show" this God that no one is able to see. Because He dwells in Light that no one can approach.
This means simply put that Jesus is God manifest. Or the revelation of God in human form. This is why He says what He says in John 14:8-9.
As Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 4:6; the light of the knowledge of the glory of God shines in the face of Jesus Christ.
And Jesus claims that when He returns; He will return in the "glory of his Father". (Matthew 16:27)
Jesus said "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" to Peter. For Jesus it was all about submitting the will of the flesh to the will of the Spirit.
He proceeded and came forth from God. God sends out His Word (Isaiah 55:11) Showing Jesus is the Word of God and God sends out His Spirit (Psalm 104:30) Showing that Jesus was indwelt by the Spirit of God.
Yes and?
Okay? Because they did not believe in Him yet. But notice that He places Himself in importance next to God. Something considered blasphemous unless He is God manifest.
Again about the flesh submitting to the Spirit.
Of course the Father is greater than the Son. The Son is flesh and blood.
Exactly. The name of Jesus is the name God used when manifest in the flesh. No wonder God answers when we use the name of Jesus. Because everything done to honor the name Jesus really honors the Father. (see Philippians 2:10-11)
Again, not denying He is God.
Jesus the Son has a God and a Creator. But that doesn't mean He isn't God manifest which is all I've been saying.
Indeed all that is plain but doesn't deny that Jesus is God manifest. The thing to understand is that Jesus is coming to be the perfect "man". The perfect human. He comes in our place to do what we were supposed to do but couldn't. I explained all that in my first post.
Not silly for God manifest in the flesh to quote His own scriptures.
Jesus claimed He could call legions of angels any time to stop all of it. (Matthew 26:53)
He does say it is God's power which it is but doesn't say He is not God.
Not in the flesh; Jesus obviously didn't have power other than through faith. But in the Spirit Jesus was and is God.
In Isaiah 9:6 we see how it is with Jesus. We see that He is fully human. Born a baby, a son. But then we see something interesting. The government or "princely power" is on His shoulder. That means He is given great power. This is the power of the "Messiah" and then it even gets better. His name will be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father etc.
So we have here the dual nature of Jesus Christ.
1. Human
2. Anointed with great power; The Messiah.
3. Divine nature. Mighty God, Everlasting Father etc.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Last edited:
No text agrees with you, but as I said, if you don't regard the bible as authoritative, even for purposes of this discussion, you're free to imagine anything that pleases you.
Nope. The Lord of the Tanakh is Yahweh. The Lord of the NT is Jesus, as Paul plainly said.
If one text has Jesus saying that the Father is the only true god, and a nearby text has Jesus add that the Father is the god Jesus worships ('my god') then that can be taken at face value ─ especially since :
Jesus is a circumcised Jew, and Yahweh is the god of the Jews,
Jesus never claims to be god, and many times says he's not,
the notion of the Trinity doesn't come into existence till two centuries later, so there's no historical basis for expecting Jesus to say anything other than that Yahweh the Father is the only true god,
and the notion of the Trinity is incoherent so Jesus would have to be irrational to subscribe to it, and it's to his credit that he doesn't.
Nope. Paul says you're wrong. Jesus says you're wrong. Paul never says you're right. Jesus never says you're right.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Yes, but you declare two Lords rather than one Lord, as scripture plainly states.
But let’s put it out there.
How many Christians believe the bible teaches two spiritual Masters rather than one? How many Jews?
Exactly, but I’m not arguing Jesus doesn’t worship the Father. Of course Jesus worships the Father. Jesus is a man and all men must worship the Father.
However Jesus, Son of God doesn’t worship anyone.
If Yahweh is God of the Jews, then Yahweh is Lord of the Jews, and if Yahweh is Lord of the Jews, then Yahweh is their Savior. But remember, we’re holding both Testaments authoritative, not one. Who is mankind ‘s Savior in the New? Are the Jews a different mankind then Gentiles? Of course not! So the same Savior of the Jews is Savior of the gentiles, and the Savior of the gentiles is the same Savior of the Jews.
Then how do you answer the OP? Since God is love, and since there is no “greater love” then sacrificing your life for your friends, how does Jesus show “greater love” then the actual source of love itself? How does the servant become greater than the Master in this regard, unless they’re both the same?
When did your notion of Bitheism come into existence? "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else. he will hold to the one, and despise the other".(Matthew 6:24). How do you scripturally resolve the quandary you just created? I see restatements of an intellectual belief (which I appreciate), but I do not see this intellect bringing forth any type of scriptural resolution.
The consequence of your belief is that scripture declares two Masters. Now place yourself in my shoes again. How do I resolve this conclusion with scripture? Do I become cultic and merely restate my belief? That is the quandary your analysis leaves the believer in, and if a believer is left in quandary they are susceptible to disbelief. Is that a goal of scripture?
Again, all this easily goes away if Jesus is God, but for the purposes of this thread we’re doing it the hard way.
Let’s stay focused on the issue…we’re not discussing Trinity doctrine, but whether Jesus is God. The issue of whether the Godhead is Triune (Trinity), different manifestations (Sabellanism) or Unitarian (Arianism) is a separate issue from whether Jesus is God.
Oeste said: ↑
No, it’s the same Lord in the Old Testament as it is in the New, same God in both, same Savior in both.
This is a great restatement, but I’m more interested in how you support your two Lord, Bitheistic theology with scripture. That is, articulating not only what is so, but how and why it is so, and how and why this provides better or more complete resolution than a contrary argument it is not. This will help move the discussion beyond proof-texting and the circular motion of most threads.
Christianity has three gods ─ that's the only coherent interpretation of the Trinity doctrine. So were we to attribute rationality to believers, the answer would be, all Trinitarians.
No, Jesus is more that a man. His sayings clearly include a claim to have existed with God in heaven from the start. Paul is also of that view.
He says (a) he worships the only true god and (b) the only true god is the Father and (c) in heaven as well as on earth there are things only the Father knows, and things only the Father can do. So taking Jesus at his word, Jesus wasn't and isn't God.
The Tanakh is ambivalent about the afterlife, and several quotes say or directly imply that death is the end for humans. There is no promise of postmortal 'eternal life' ─ that's essentially a Greek idea, and the authors of the NT wrote in Greek. My point is that 'savior' in the Tanakh doesn't carry with it the inference of postmortal existence, rather the salvation of the Jews regarded as a nation. But I'd be interested to hear from anyone more learned in things Jewish than I am.
That doesn't stop them being incompatible. They have internal incompatiblities too eg the Tanakh on how many gods there are; and in the NT each of the six accounts of the resurrection contradicts the other five in major ways.
Yes. For instance, both in the Tanakh and the NT, males need to be circumcised ie to be within God's covenant with the Jews, hence recognized by the Jewish god.
First, Jesus didn't sacrifice his life. After his 'death', the stories are clear that he returned to earth with the ability to speak, eat, remain unrecognized till it pleased him to be recognized, to appear in and disappear from locked rooms and so on. He lost nothing by dying, and shortly ascended to heaven and resumed his former job.
Second, as to how Jesus can show love equal to the Father's love (and refraining from argument as to whether the bible says or necessarily implies any such thing), Jesus says he has only such powers as God allows him; so (assuming for the moment love is an appropriate word for God's attitude to humans), if that includes loving everyone as much as God does then Jesus can do it because God has empowered him to do it.
He doesn't have to become greater than God. God, says Jesus in as many words, is greatest of all. Jesus only has to be great enough to get the message across.
There's only one god in the NT, and it's not Jesus. There's only one doorway to god in the NT, and that's Jesus ─ the mediator between God and man.
I shoulda checked this at the start ─ mea maxima culpa.
In the Tanakh, Yahweh is God, and his name is represented by the tetragrammaton, anglicized as YHWH, used over 6,000 times. The KJV translators rendered YHWH into English (with a handful of exceptions) as 'Lord'. That solution to the problem has been adopted by later translators.
In the NT Yahweh is still God and also called the Father (a title also found, albeit rarely, in the Tanakh eg Malachi 2:10). In the NT Jesus is called Ἰησοῦς / Jesus and politely in public κύριος ─ sir, master, lord, owner, boss.
So 'Lord' in the Tanakh translates a completely different concept to 'Lord' in the NT.
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
That would be a coherent interpretation of Tritheism rather than the Trinity and a talking point of the cults. Christianity has one God and I'm not aware of any reputable Christian scholar who argues otherwise. Lumping Tritheists with Trinitarians is like lumping Seventh Day Adventists with Jehovah Witnesses.
We agree on this. Where we disagree is not on how Jesus is man, but how he is Deity.
The incarnate Jesus worships the Father because he is fully man. The pre-incarnate Jesus, which is Yahweh, wouldn’t be worshiping anyone. I’m glad we can at least agree that, based on scripture, Jesus preexisted the womb. You may not believe he actually preexisted but at least, intellectually, you consider it part of the biblical narrative. It saves us a lot of time.
I disagree, but it wouldn’t matter, because we’re talking about savior rather the afterlife (which the Jews referred to as Olam Ha-Ba). From Daniel 12:2:
וְרַבִּ֕ים מִיְּשֵׁנֵ֥י אַדְמַת־עָפָ֖ר יָקִ֑יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחַיֵּ֣י עוֹלָ֔ם וְאֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲרָפ֖וֹת לְדִרְא֥וֹן עוֹלָֽם׃ (ס)
Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.
I would agree they never appeared to obsess about it as much as Christians
As you know, the Jews believed they would get a Messiah who would lead a great army to free the nation from the Romans and establish a Kingdom that would last forever. From my standpoint, and the view of the vast majority of Christians, Yahweh declared himself that Savior and Jesus declares the same.
Of course the New and Old Testament appear incompatible. They remain incompatible to anyone who does not perceive Jesus as God. Once Jesus is accepted as the Savior of both Testaments the perceived incompatibility goes away.
But it goes beyond that. The failure to perceive Jesus as God introduces incompatibilities within the NT without any consideration of the Old. That was the whole point of this thread. For example, when I point out that sacrificing your life for your friends shows a greater love that the one who does not, most Unitarians will gloss over the "greater" love and perceive it as "equal" love because their mind does not allow greater love than Yahweh, yet that's exactly what the scripture states.
Remember HockeyCowboy's earlier post about the Turntable bridge? A moving story about a father who gave up his son. But scripture doesn't tell us greater love is when we give up someone else's life, even if it's someone we value. It tells us greater love is when we give up our own. That never happens in a "Jesus ain't God" scenario and the servant ends up with greater love than the Master.
So either the scripture is wrong or the doctrine. If one is not willing to give up the doctrine the scripture remains wrong and you can find other scripture that just as wrong because it doesn't agree with the doctrine. That's fine, but only if we believe we've exhausted all possible explanations and doctrines. At that point the scripture becomes incongruous and suspect. But if one doctrine consistently works where all others fail, that's the one we need to go with. Right now, that doctrine is "Jesus is God".
I see this as no different from the Christian martyrs who believed to keep their life was to lose it, but to give their life was to gain. Only atheists and Jehovah Witnesses believe you cease to exist when you die. Death does not end existence and has never been a teaching of the Christian church.
Equal love? That's not what scripture tells us.Scripture tells us it is greater love:
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. (John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. (John 15:13
There is no “greater” love than laying down your life for someone else.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
According to John 15:13 it will always be the one laying down his life that shows greater love Blü, not the person watching, suggesting, or agreeing with it.
If Jesus is laying down his life then he is showing greater love than God, a stance totally inconsistent with scripture. Romans 5:8 makes much more sense if Jesus is God and absolutely no sense if he is not. As scripture states, a servant is not greater than his Master.
It’s quite the quandary and twisted knot unless, of course, Jesus is God.
There is no one to compare to God but God. No man, no angel, and certainly no other deity.
In the NT Yahweh is still God and also called the Father (a title also found, albeit rarely, in the Tanakh eg Malachi 2:10). In the NT Jesus is called Ἰησοῦς / Jesus and politely in public κύριος ─ sir, master, lord, owner, boss.
The christian martyr, Polycarp, a disciple of John and teacher or Irenaeus, was offered his life if he simply said "Caesar is Lord". All he had to declare, rather politely and in a public forum (where they just happened to burn, crucify, and feed Christians to lions) that Caesar was his master owner, or boss and the Proconsul would let him walk out the stadium, a free man. His response? " Eighty-six years I have served Christ. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"
The early Christians were quite aware of what "Lord" meant, and they refused to acknowledge anyone but Christ as Lord. There is but one Lord over all and the idea you can blaspheme against anyone but God is idolatry.
I was trying to be generous, but you're right ─ there's no coherent interpretation of the Trinity doctrine. Either 1+1+1=3 or ⅓+⅓+⅓ = 1. Ain't no middle way.
No part of my argument says Jesus is deity. Exactly as Jesus said, nothing about Jesus is of himself deity. No question of 'how' arises.
No, once the Trinity doctrine applies, nothing like that can happen. For instance, Trinity Jesus never ceases to be 100% of God because that's his Trinitarian nature Again, Trinity Jesus doesn't worship the Father ─ if anyone, he worships God, and he's 100% of God and the equal of the Father and of the Ghost in all respects, so if he worships anyone, and he says he does, he worships himself. Again, Trinity Jesus says on the cross, Me, me, why have I forsaken me? Again, the Trinity Father has no better claim to being the Father than Jesus or the Ghost have, albeit no worse either.
English has many words for the Trinity sort of situation, but this is a family show so I'll settle for 'nonsense'.
Nothing like that in my book. Please quote me the text on which you rely for that claim.
As I said, the Tanakh is ambivalent on the topic eg going the other way ─
Ecclesiastes 3: 18 I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Job 14:10 But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? 11 As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up,12 so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be roused out of his sleep.
Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish.
Ecclesiastes 9: 4 But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.
Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish.
Ecclesiastes 9: 4 But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.
You can perceive Jesus as God to your heart's content, but the Tanakh will still have internal inconsistencies, the NT will still have internal inconsistencies, and the Tanakh and the NT will still be incompatible. (The Christian habit of pretending the Tanakh is really about Jesus is as nonsensical as the Trinity doctrine.)
Nope, you've misread your text. It says 'Greater love hath no MAN than this.' It says nothing to rule God out.
Under the rules we agreed, scripture therefore wins and Jesus' many declarations that he's not God stand unchallenged.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Then shouldn't the warden die in this scenario?
Yeah, I missed those verses where the Romans asked Jesus nicely to kill him and he was like, "Sure, no prob."
So the way to heaven is a bridge that malfunctions? Okay.
But he wasn't?
I like to amuse myself with the thought that Jesus is Yahweh's karma coming back to bite Him.
As long as that lasts about 72 hours.
It's really the easiest thing, which is why gods all over the planet did it.
Only because no one can admit to all the sins he commits. How he made it to adulthood is beyond me, because when he dishonored his parents to run off and brag to the Temple staff, per Mosaic Law they had every right to stone him right then and there.
So does Trump.
Those people also don't wake back up after 72 hours.
Does the redeemer cancel the loan if he stops working after 72 hours?
Which is why we're all still expected to repent. There'd be no need if Jesus paid our bill already.
John thinking Jesus was God does not make Jesus God.
And does any of the deaths result in the crime magically not happen anymore? Did the victim come back to life? Did stolen money get returned? No? While I'm for the death penalty in extreme cases, it's to protect society from monsters, not to restore anything or anyone taken from us because of said monsters.
There were no witnesses to this. How is it determined?
Yeah, it wasn't a termination so much as a promotion.
But the bible is often wrong in many, many ways.
Christians say that Satan rules Earth, so which is it? Is God the ruler or not?
And if not, why worship a God who loses an entire planet? It's His ONE JOB.
Wrong. It leaves no doubt people CONCLUDED Jesus was from God.
These are people who are easily impressed. I could show them a ball point pen and be considered a miracle worker.
How is this a thing? Genesis does not describe this at all. God clearly speaks to Adam, Eve, Cain, and various humans throughout the rest of the bible. Some separation....
God started the delusion of separation by being mad that the species He created to be in His image wants to act like HIM.
If that were the case, people would admit to what is actually in the relative texts and not just take any old claim, even the ones in the bible, for granted. It's like when the bible claims Jesus said Satan is the Father of Lies. He never lies in ANY scene he's in, making Jesus the liar.
Claims have to be supported. Many in the bible simply aren't.
Or one or both are full of themselves.
Then what is the point of caring about, say, the Ten Commandments?
How does God forgive people before Jesus was even born? Jesus is unnecessary in the OT, therefore, the claim Jesus is necessary is false.
Which God said that to which Gods? In the Baal Cycle, it is Baal who accuses Yah(weh) of being lazy and useless. Yah(weh) is kicked off the throne and Baal Hadad takes the spot (and then dies anyway, like Yahweh does), but as immortals it is rather irrelevant because both Gods are seasonal so They just wake up later anyway.
How is Jesus lord anyway when he's around for around just a year or so, has only "photo op" miracles that are hardly ever followed up, never brings about any major structural change in society, runs away more often than he helps, and still expects us to repent after he claims to pay our bill? Jesus reads more like a filler episode where the overall season arc isn't really affected if you skip it entirely. Jesus fixes sin and death and yet both still exist and God is gonna destroy the planet He vowed earlier didn't need destroying.
And I've read that some ancient texts say that El, Baal, Yahweh, Asherah, Astarte, etc all went to Egypt and Greece and became, at least in Greece, Cronus, Zeus, Poseidon, (not sure), Aphrodite, etc.
(am sleepy after working last night, will pick up later)
Riders
Well-Known Member
The ol testament was not speaking of the Jesus in the new testament but talking about a Jewish Messiah from the Jewish Messiah movement.