dogsgod
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, that is who Jesus is, I answered the question and It has absolutely everything to do with the discussion, it's bang on topic. It doesn't mean a thing that you don't agree.
-
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!
Theists Only: Who was/is Jesus, in your opinion?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
In my opinion, that is who Jesus is, I answered the question and It has absolutely everything to do with the discussion, it's bang on topic. It doesn't mean a thing that you don't agree.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The topic was for theists for the exact reason that he wanted to have an actual discussion of the historical Jesus. Especially when considering there is more then enough evidence to support that a historical Jesus truly did exist.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Jesus is the Son of man, who has been hidden from the beginning of time, who will be revealed when the end of the ages is near, and who will serve as the judge of men and angels when the earth is destroyed and the New Jerusalem of heaven comes as the place of inhabitance for the righteous men of all nations where death will be abolished and the righteous live with the Son of man for ever and ever. That is who Christ is and that is who Jesus is, and that figure is a purely mythical character that existed long before the emergence of the specific story of Jesus.
Why was the mode of death crucifixion in the early Jesus story? Because this was the mode of death suffered by the people under the occupation of Rome from which they sought deliverance (He is suffering what we are suffering in order to take our suffering away). The above is borrowed from R G Price of whom I happen to agree with. In my opinion this is of whom Jesus is or was.
Why was the mode of death crucifixion in the early Jesus story? Because this was the mode of death suffered by the people under the occupation of Rome from which they sought deliverance (He is suffering what we are suffering in order to take our suffering away). The above is borrowed from R G Price of whom I happen to agree with. In my opinion this is of whom Jesus is or was.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Actually I think Jesus was an avatar of Brahman not Jehovah. Just like Krishna. I don't see how the NT and OT teach anywhere near the same thing, they don't even describe God the same. I believe just what Jesus meant when he said to the Jews: "You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you will do, he was a liar and a MURDERER from the beginning." Murderer indicating the slaughter of the Canaanites on Jehovah's supposed orders.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I would also like to add that I don't believe in the ressurection literally either. I think it was a spiritual ressurection. Jesus spiritually ascended to heaven, or whatever you wish to call the afterlife. He is there with all the other avatars and saints.
No essential difference in my eyes.
Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu. Shankara was an avatar (according to some) of Shiva. As such, if you want to bring Hinduism into this, at best you could say that Jesus is an avatar of Brahma. (Creator... Father...) But since I don't like bringing Hindu gods into Jewish mythology, so I just say that Jesus is an avatar of the Jewish God.
I think Jesus was berating the Jews of the time for moving away from what YHWH had originally taught, the deviation being reflected in the Torah and Talmud. (Jews will naturally disagree.)
Don't forget, after all, that Jesus apparently thought very highly of the prophets.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Yes I agree Jesus was berating them for moving away from the original teachings of the law. In their time though they no longer had the original law even. Jeremiah said the pen of the scribes wrought falsehood. As for the prophets, the prophets didn't teach "Judaism" either, they tried to teach people deeper spiritual truths, and Jesus said they got killed for that. He said: Jerusalem that murders all the prophets. In fact, they murdered Jesus too.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Unlike other convicts, the posting over His head had a political/religious slant.
The Jewish authorities had serious objection.
If the Romans execute any man standing forth as 'king of the Jews'...
or any man standing forth as a prophet....
Then all hope of ever coming out from under Rome is gone.
In the face of Jewish authority...Pilate refrained...
'I have written what I have written.'
However, when approached and the request made for the body, the Roman authorities allowed the body quickly removed.
Across the immediate country side, Jesus had been known to draw large crowds.
What if news of the execution be allowed to spread over several days?
BTW...He was nailed to hasten His death.
Most convicts were simply tied the cross.
Death followed by thirst or exposure.
Jesus was nailed...then lanced....that He not hang for the usual three days.
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
I believe if Jesus existed as the bible claims he did, then it makes him God. In order for me to conclude that, it takes allegorical interpretation, but that's OK with me, if we are just having a discussion.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
God, yes, but not equal to God the Father, and by no means God in the same way God the Father is God.
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
Obviously open to debate.
If you use only the bible, it is easy to understand why Jesus HAD to be equal to God, and in fact was God in the flesh.
To each his own though, I respect your opinion.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I agree that Jesus was/is God. How could he be equal to God the Father though? He came forth from the Father. He was only a small part of something much bigger and greater, just like all avatars and lesser gods.
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
You present an option, but not the only one.
If God has an infinite mind and consequently infinite abilities, I can perfectly accept Jesus came forth from himself, as a human being, yet at the same time was God Almighty. It is possible somethings aren't for us to understand, or rather, we don't have the capacity to understand.
It is kind of the same questions as why did God allow Satan to exist. The proper answer for me, is God can do what he wants.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made.
Who, for us human beings and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made a human being; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; and suffered, and was buried; and the third day rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom will have no end.
Who, for us human beings and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made a human being; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; and suffered, and was buried; and the third day rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom will have no end.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
And yet Mr. Emu, traditional Christianity has also always recognized that the Father's role is as the head of the Godhead, while the Son's role is reconciliation to the Father. It is for this reason that the Eastern Orthodox wouldn't adopt the fillioque clause into the creed, it changes the definition of the trinity. The Father is the head of Jesus
The Filioque has different connotation in Greek than Latin. That is why it is not added when the Creed is said in Greek, nor are Eastern Rites required to add it.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
No it's about the nature of the Father's person in contrast to the Son's person. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, and adding the fillioque changes the role of the Son. Furthermore, since it could be argued that the Holy Spirit is also the "Mother", and I believe it is so, and several early Christians believed it, the Mother proceeds from the Son? Makes no sense