Was Jesus God?

[Harmonious]

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.

We don't "know" this. Many Christians believe this. Many other people do not.

There is no wrinkle in the idea that "God" is a singular name that is singularly held. It is just not your belief.

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.

Interesting. I don't believe it at all, but it is, nonetheless, interesting.

 

[fallingblood]

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?

My wife and I have often said that we are one. Part of our vows stated such as well. However, it doesn't mean we are each other. As in, my wife is a man named Dustin. Being one with another doesn't imply they really are one.

 

[outhouse]

jesus if he was real was a traveling hellenistic teacher of judaism who wanted to or ended up being a martyr for his movement.

he was just a human who was in the right place at the right time in a place where there was a need for a new belief structure.

 

[Colin Robinson]

Who cares what you or I think Jesus was? More interesting question is: What did Jesus think he was?

Which is not necessarily an easy question to answer. Especially if you think it possible that the New Testament contains historical inaccuracies...

However... consider the two words: "Our father" -- the beginning of the prayer which Jesus himself is said to have taught.

If you recite something regularly, such as a prayer, you are likely to remember it right. So I'd suggest that a prayer like this may well have remained the same, through the first years of what became the Christian church, while other words and actions of Jesus were getting embellished.

These words "our father" imply that yes, Jesus considered himself to be a son of God. But did he consider himself God's only son? On the contrary, he actively encouraged other people to remind themselves that they too were God's sons and God's daughters...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Who cares what you or I think Jesus was? More interesting question is: What did Jesus think he was?

Which is not necessarily an easy question to answer. Especially if you think it possible that the New Testament contains historical inaccuracies...

However... consider the two words: "Our father" -- the beginning of the prayer which Jesus himself is said to have taught.

If you recite something regularly, such as a prayer, you are likely to remember it right. So I'd suggest that a prayer like this may well have remained the same, through the first years of what became the Christian church, while other words and actions of Jesus were getting embellished.

These words "our father" imply that yes, Jesus considered himself to be a son of God. But did he consider himself God's only son? On the contrary, he actively encouraged other people to remind themselves that they too were God's sons and God's daughters...

Great post.

 

[YmirGF]

I think he was. For him to do all the things he did, he would have had to have been.

As a friend of the family, I would say that, "Yes, Jesus was the son of god, but certainly no more so than you yourself are. Granted he was more familiar with the nuances of his relationship, but nonetheless, the point stands." Dare you accept the ramifications of your inheritance?

 

[1AOA1]

Who cares what you or I think Jesus was? More interesting question is: What did Jesus think he was?

Which is not necessarily an easy question to answer. Especially if you think it possible that the New Testament contains historical inaccuracies...

However... consider the two words: "Our father" -- the beginning of the prayer which Jesus himself is said to have taught.

If you recite something regularly, such as a prayer, you are likely to remember it right. So I'd suggest that a prayer like this may well have remained the same, through the first years of what became the Christian church, while other words and actions of Jesus were getting embellished.

These words "our father" imply that yes, Jesus considered himself to be a son of God. But did he consider himself God's only son? On the contrary, he actively encouraged other people to remind themselves that they too were God's sons and God's daughters...

If there is one Father wouldn't there be one Son? And was there another Christ on the earth? Aren't all men the image and likeness of God and God's children? Does being God's children mean that the Christ has dominion?

 

[Breathe]

If there is one Father wouldn't there be one Son?

Why would that be the case? Curious.

As a friend of the family, I would say that, "Yes, Jesus was the son of god, but certainly no more so than you yourself are. Granted he was more familiar with the nuances of his relationship, but nonetheless, the point stands." Dare you accept the ramifications of your inheritance?

I agree entirely.

 

[1AOA1]

Why would that be the case? Curious.

They are one correct? Would we need to divide God if not for 3 dimension relationship?

 

[Muffled]

They are one correct? Would we need to divide God if not for 3 dimension relationship?

The three dimensional relationship does not divide God. If you were talking about human beings then there appear to only be one instance of each and a three way relationship means three person. However God is omnipresent, meaning that there are innumerable instances of God. However God chose two other modes in which to represent Himself: Son and Paraclete. You could probably counter that every human being is manifested in a physical body at some point however no human being can be in a physical body and everywhere else at the same time. THe Paraclete extends this even further becuase now there is an instance of God in every person willing to be a host. Now the omnipresence of God shows up in a multitude of Physical bodies. So the bottom line is that the omni-presence of God can provide a multitude of instances of the One God.

I will put this in a software approach. Each time a person signs on to a site, he gets an instance of the software. There are not thousands of programs but only one with many instances.

 

[Muffled]

As a friend of the family, I would say that, "Yes, Jesus was the son of god, but certainly no more so than you yourself are. Granted he was more familiar with the nuances of his relationship, but nonetheless, the point stands." Dare you accept the ramifications of your inheritance?

Let's put this to the test. Can you honestly say that you and God are one?

 

[BigRed]

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?

There is a Roman Grave Marker inscribed with the name "Pantera"
There was a picture of the marker in Biblical Archeology Review. I threw my old copies away when I moved so I can't offer any more information.

Look at this Scripture.....
Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Mark identifies Jesus as a Carpenter son of his mother Mary. This identifies Jesus as illegitimate.
Look what Matthew does.....
Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Matthew identifies Jesus as the SON of the Carpenter. It removes the taint of illegitimacy. neat!

BigRed
BTW Great Post!

 

[Muffled]

There is a Roman Grave Marker inscribed with the name "Pantera"
There was a picture of the marker in Biblical Archeology Review. I threw my old copies away when I moved so I can't offer any more information.

Look at this Scripture.....
Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Mark identifies Jesus as a Carpenter son of his mother Mary. This identifies Jesus as illegitimate.
Look what Matthew does.....
Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Matthew identifies Jesus as the SON of the Carpenter. It removes the taint of illegitimacy. neat!

BigRed
BTW Great Post!

A person could argue that the story of a virgin birth was made up, if there was no evidence of the deity of Jesus. His deity makes the account more believable.

Looking at it from the other point of view, trying to speculate that the story is made up, can't prove that Jesus isn't God, first because there is no hard evidence and second because it isn't necessary for Him to be born of a virgin other than to fulfill prophecy.

The fact ramains that many can be called sons of God but only Jesus is worthy of it.