• 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?

Was Jesus God?

  • Total voters
    32
C

connerb

Member
you have to think of God as a family name. the head of the family is the Father and Jesus is the Son. they are separate beings but both part of the same family so they can both use the family name God
 
T

TheSunofReality

Unite!
What the Baha'i Faith has to say about this topic:

A question addressed to Abdul-baha in Some Answered Questions:


Question.—What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?
Answer.—The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.
The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence.
God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.
Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors—one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit—that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly.
The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality—that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes—became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied—for the Sun is one—but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.
The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.
It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved.
 
H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
Ben Masada said:
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?
Click to expand...
Wow.

That makes sense to me.
 
I

israelite32

israelite32
sorry to tell u folks jesus was merely a false prophet! not that he was evil or anything like that? when rome was in rule and the israelites were being oppressed they( israelites) wanted the" messiah" to come and restore israel to glory. jesus tried to be the "messiah"but if you are the"messiah" you would build the 3rd temple, gather all israelites back home, usher in an era of peace when man will not know war and a few other things that jesus never accomplished! plus the " messiah Will be born of normal parents and poses no super powers! he will be a mighty warrior and he will defeat evil 1s and for all. christians complain that jesus promised to do these things when he returns?but G-D never mentioned this in the TORAH and christians read the TORAH too right? SHALOM!
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
israelite32 said:
sorry to tell u folks jesus was merely a false prophet! not that he was evil or anything like that? when rome was in rule and the israelites were being oppressed they( israelites) wanted the" messiah" to come and restore israel to glory. jesus tried to be the "messiah"but if you are the"messiah" you would build the 3rd temple, gather all israelites back home, usher in an era of peace when man will not know war and a few other things that jesus never accomplished! plus the " messiah Will be born of normal parents and poses no super powers! he will be a mighty warrior and he will defeat evil 1s and for all. christians complain that jesus promised to do these things when he returns?but G-D never mentioned this in the TORAH and christians read the TORAH too right? SHALOM!
Click to expand...
I'm not supporting the idea that Jesus was a prophet. However, I doubt anyone could really say for sure either way.

There are a couple of problems that I see in your post though. First, it is not sure if Jesus even claimed to be the Messiah. Some of his followers definitely stated that Jesus was the Messiah, but it is not sure if Jesus ascribed that title to himself. I am of the idea that he did not see himself of the Messiah and did not try to fulfill messianic expectancy. Instead, he was trying to prepare people for the Kingdom of God, which would replace the Kingdom of Rome here on Earth. So he didn't see himself as the Messiah, but one who would help issue in a new era.

More so, Jesus most likely was born of normal parents. It was not too uncommon for figures in ancient times to have attached supernatural births if they were considered important. We see this through the Hebrew Bible as well as other ancient figures such as Augustus. The attachment of such extraordinary births is not completely unsuspected.

As for super powers, nothing of the such really is attached to Jesus. Yes, he is said to have done some miracles. However, they are nothing completely unique. There were other miracle workers around during the time of Jesus. There were also other prophets in Judaism that performed miracles as well. So it would not have been a signal that he wasn't the Messiah.

Finally, during the time of Jesus, there was already a Temple. There would have been no reason for a new temple to be built. Maybe a cleansing of the Temple and a restoration of the priesthood, but not a complete rebuilding.
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
1AOA1 said:
Doesn't he say that he is one with God? Isn't being one, also be one in desire which would also be one in purpose with God? :)
Click to expand...

But one in purpose does not mean one in the same. He prayed to his god asking for that same oneness in John Chapter 17.
 
1

1AOA1

Active Member
Dirty Penguin said:
But one in purpose does not mean one in the same. He prayed to his god asking for that same oneness in John Chapter 17.
Click to expand...

:confused: Isn't the Christ already one with God as he stated? Wouldn't one will and one purpose among other things be inclusive of being one with God? Oh doesn't he pray that we may be one with God as he and the Father is?
 
Evandr

Evandr

Stripling Warrior
Here is a thought; we already know that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are considered God so that throws a wrinkle in the idea that "God" is a name that is singularly held when it is obvious that it is not.

Personally, I believe that the term "God" is one that denotes a person who has been endowed with the highest office (and thusly the power) of the priesthood, a priesthood that can be embarked upon in mortality via the earthly ministry of God's church but only obtainable much later after all trials are done with. Only then will those who are of sufficient stature and character be so endowed and receive the only real eternal increase that can be had by anyone - the propagation of one’s own spiritual posterity. The rest will (pardon the poor analogy) be put out to pasture never knowing the eternal increase of posterity.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
connerb said:
you have to think of God as a family name. the head of the family is the Father and Jesus is the Son. they are separate beings but both part of the same family so they can both use the family name God
Click to expand...

I don't have to think of it that way and I don't see any Biblical support for it. My God is one: Father Jehovah, Son Jesus, and God in us Paraclete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top