Christian Gnosis
Active Member
I think he was. For him to do all the things he did, he would have had to have been.
-
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!
Was Jesus God?
- Thread starter Christian Gnosis
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I prefer "son of God."
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Apollonius of Tyana. He was even compared to Jesus. I think your argument would be just as credible for Apollonius then. For him to do all the things he did, he would have to be a god. (Now, I don't believe that, but it follows the same logic).
IMO, Jesus was probably a human teacher, but now wrapped in so much myth that he probably bears no resemblance to what he originally was... kinda like the historical sand at the centre of a mythic pearl, or the stone in "stone soup".
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If he existed, I suppose he's as much god as anyone.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:clap:clap:clap
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I do not believe anyone is not God.
I see him as a "son of God" in three ways: a wise religious teacher, one who takes after God [compassionate, an embodiment of Divine Love], and a human being. I also believe he was a religious and moral teacher, but many of his teachings have become distorted or lost, and others have been fabricated and falsely attributed to him.
My two cents.
I see him as a "son of God" in three ways: a wise religious teacher, one who takes after God [compassionate, an embodiment of Divine Love], and a human being. I also believe he was a religious and moral teacher, but many of his teachings have become distorted or lost, and others have been fabricated and falsely attributed to him.
My two cents.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
By whom?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I believe Eusebius did. Quite a distance in between, I know.
Gaura Priya
IRL
I am more convinced of the Arian (Jesus is not God, but divine) or even Socinian (Jesus was human) conception than the Mormon one. The modern day Latter Day Saint movement is a bit binitarian: Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of creation, and in the beginning, God (Elohim) is God the Father, and Jehovah (YHWH) refers to Jesus.
Personally, I believe that Jesus is divine, but he is not God Himself, as Heavenly Father. He is a god, but not God. Jehovah and Elohim are the same Eternal God, and Jesus is the first-born, His only begotten.
"Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
-- John 17:24
Personally, I believe that Jesus is divine, but he is not God Himself, as Heavenly Father. He is a god, but not God. Jehovah and Elohim are the same Eternal God, and Jesus is the first-born, His only begotten.
"Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
-- John 17:24
Last edited by a moderator:
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Jesus was God and the Son of God in a mythological sense, even if he didn't exist. What I mean is that he has become a symbol associated with the transcendent made immanent, made present. For me, the idea that God became flesh is symbolic that the sacred, transcendence, is rooted in everything -- pantheism.
If by "God" you mean that Jesus could work miracles and was some kind of sky deity born into a particular human body, then no, I don't believe in that at all.
“God became human so that we might become god.” -- St. Athanasius
“Jesus comes up out of the water and he makes the cosmos, which he carries, to ascend [out of the water] with him.” -- St. Gregory
If by "God" you mean that Jesus could work miracles and was some kind of sky deity born into a particular human body, then no, I don't believe in that at all.
“God became human so that we might become god.” -- St. Athanasius
“Jesus comes up out of the water and he makes the cosmos, which he carries, to ascend [out of the water] with him.” -- St. Gregory
Gaura Priya
IRL
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
Just a teacher, that is if he was not fiction.
averageJOE
zombie
Jesus was the son of a woman who got pregnant due to infedelity and covered it up by saying god did it.
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
And I blame Christians for that agnostic version of the Christian claim that Jesus was son of God. Since there is no such a thing in Judaism, I have no choice but to side with Joe's point of view above.
= The Alleged Sons of God =
According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.
When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East, under Pompey, and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.
According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.
Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.
As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (From a Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)
Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.
Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.
Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.
What's your reaction to all the above?
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
I think it's very unwise to base such a theory on one particular event in texts that the authors clearly knew were not history, at least not history as we conceive of it in modern times. They had no problem editing each others' versions and gathering information from various sources to piece together these tales. The gospels are very much intertextual works, like the Torah.
The virgin birth tradition didn't even exist in the earliest biblical accounts of Jesus' life (the writings of Paul, who said she was born of a woman, not a virgin) or the earliest gospel, Mark. John used a different way to illuminate Jesus' role -- he was the Word with God in the beginning. He also never mentioned a virgin birth.
I think it is clear that the virgin birth tradition evolved later on in Christianity as a way of emphasizing the Christian belief in Jesus' divine origin.
If there was a historical Jesus, I suppose he could have been illegitimate or the product of rape, but if that was the case, why didn't the virgin birth tradition arise much earlier in Christianity?
:yes:--Which is God, correct?
mikeward62
New Member
I believe that Jesus and the Prophets - were like waves that eminated from the great Ocean that we call God - at any time 'one with the Ocean' although seperate and smaller entities - Mankind are like raindrops - that derive from the same source but ultimately return unto it and merge into oneness with the whole.
mikeward62
:angel2:
mikeward62
:angel2: