Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[rrobs]

But the Bible didn't. Not when you really dig into it.

Scholarship as always been at odds with the scriptures.

Eccl 1:17,

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.​

1Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
​

I wish I could find it again, but I read somewhere that a huge percentage of scientific "knowledge" is later found to be false. I mean it was like more than 50%. That's where scholarship gets ya!

 

[JustWondering]

I believe Jesus was a cult leader back in the day and after his death others carried the religion on, adding miracles and claims of divinity to attract more followers.

 

[Spartan]

Scholarship as always been at odds with the scriptures.

Eccl 1:17,

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.​

1Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
​

I wish I could find it again, but I read somewhere that a huge percentage of scientific "knowledge" is later found to be false. I mean it was like more than 50%. That's where scholarship gets ya!

Depending on the scholar, Biblical scholarship is awesome. Have you read these from a top scholar?


"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[rrobs]

Depending on the scholar, Biblical scholarship is awesome. Have you read these from a top scholar?


"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

I haven't read those particular books, but I have read similar books.

And, a big fat yes regarding the awesomeness of Biblical scholarship in general! I'm a big fan.

 

[rrobs]

I believe Jesus was a cult leader back in the day and after his death others carried the religion on, adding miracles and claims of divinity to attract more followers.

Well, that sounds as much like blind faith as Christians are usually accused of. Were you there?

 

[JustWondering]

Well, that sounds as much like blind faith as Christians are usually accused of. Were you there?

Takes a lot less blind faith to believe that ancient stories of some guy in the middle east walked on water and brought dead people back to life are made up stories than to believe those stories are true.

Think about this. If I told you my neighbor Ralph could fly and breath fire you'd dismiss me as a lunatic yet when I dismiss your claims about Jesus I have to justify why I don't believe it. How is that fair? The only thing you have to back your claims are stories in an ancient book that was written in a time when superstition ruled the world. There is no logical, rational reason for me to accept the claims made in the bible as being true.

 

[blü 2]

No, it‘s correctly represented as 1 x 1 x 1. We just showed that and you verified it with the math example. You correctly determined the apple was still 1 apple no matter the number of ones (1’s) on the left side of the chalkboard. We can do that with multiplication, but not with addition.

Then you refused to follow your own Little Johnny to where this automatically leads ─ what is

√(Ghost/[Jesus-God])​

?
After all, if you can multiply, you can divide, and if you can divide you can extract roots. And I've only asked you for the square root, not the (5i+13)th root.

Then you’re left with little Johnny’s argument which you’ve already expressly denied.

Because, as I showed you, and as you've confirmed by not providing the answer to my sum, it's a false analogy.

I don't think even the heretics claim to be composed of 1/3 body, 1/3 spirit, and 1/3 soul.

Not that I've noticed, though with those dingbats you never know. The claim that Jesus, Father and Ghost are simply manifestations of the one God, is found in early church history. It's not unlike the Jewish concept of the ruach ('breath') being a manifestation of God rather than a distinct entity. But the Trinity doctrine expressly denies both the fractions notion and the One God notion.

Where did I “sponsor” Little Johnny?

By bringing him into the conversation in order to (attempt to) make a point.

It is still a mystery in the strict sense. A mystery is simply something that was hidden in the Old Testament but revealed in the New. So it is a revealed truth.

More accurately, it's a revealed nonsense, which is what 'mystery in the strict sense, as I told you before, but will again refresh your memory:

[The Trinity] doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.

─ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, under 'Trinity'.​

The online Catholic Encyclopedia, under 'Trinity' and 'Mystery', agrees.

2. It is revealed in the New Testament.

The Trinity isn't revealed in the NT. It's devised as a solution to a question debated in Early Church politics of the 3rd and 4th centuries. It didn't exist in Jesus' day.

And as you recall, he never once pretended to be God, and repeatedly denied he was God, stating that the Father was 'the only true god', and further stating that he worshiped the Father ─ problems neither you nor Spartan have ever addressed.

Christ is 100% God because he is God. Ditto for the Holy Spirit and the Father.

That's right. There are three separate and distinct persons each of whom is 100% of God. 100%+100%+100%=300%=3 gods. I suppose you'd want to argue that 100%x100%x100%=1,000,000%=10,000 gods. no?

The three are one God as to substance (God) but three as to person (Father, Son, Spirit).

What substance is that, exactly? How can we distinguish it from 'person'?
Correct. If Trinitarians believed in 3 Gods, then your equation of

1 + 1 + 1= 3

This is where I pointed out last time that because the Trinity doctrine denies that 1+1+1=3, it's a mystery in the strict sense, which as you saw above is very very difficult to distinguish from a nonsense.

 

[rrobs]

Takes a lot less blind faith to believe that ancient stories of some guy in the middle east walked on water and brought dead people back to life are made up stories than to believe those stories are true.

Think about this. If I told you my neighbor Ralph could fly and breath fire you'd dismiss me as a lunatic yet when I dismiss your claims about Jesus I have to justify why I don't believe it. How is that fair? The only thing you have to back your claims are stories in an ancient book that was written in a time when superstition ruled the world. There is no logical, rational reason for me to accept the claims made in the bible as being true.

If Ralph really believed he could fly and breath fire he absolutely could. Jesus once said that if someone told a mountain to jump in the ocean, and believed in their innermost being that it would, then it would. The simple reason nobody has done that is because we've all been taught our whole lives that such a thing is impossible, and therefore that is what we believe. Nonetheless, God said we could. I also like to say, "are you going to believe God or your own two eyes?" Well, I can't deny that my eyes often hold more sway than God's word. It's just the human condition, including me, but that doesn't negate what Jesus said about believing.

If you really studied and understood for yourself what the scriptures said, I guarantee you would see them as the most logical and sane thing going. I suspect most of your scriptural knowledge comes from hearsay and your own supposition. It's the five senses world that's batty and makes little to no logical sense.

 

[blü 2]

If Ralph really believed he could fly and breath fire he absolutely could. Jesus once said that if someone told a mountain to jump in the ocean, and believed in their innermost being that it would, then it would.

Has there ever been one example authenticated by (modern) science?

With seven billion folks in the world, surely to goodness there'd be at least one, no?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Trinity). Two articles provide backup for this:

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture
Jesus Must be Jehovah

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." - Colossians 1:16

The Bible also says that Jesus existed as God BEFORE his incarnation as a man (Philippians 2:5-7, etc.).

The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being? WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?

1. a character in a book

2. if there was a historical jesus, then also a human around wich a whole bunch of myths and legends arose which accumulated in a religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have evidence Jesus' words have been embellished? If so I'd like to see it.

It's just a question of likelyness...

What is more likely?
- that this human really was a supernatural being, god himself, who defied/suspended/violated physics and the laws of nature?

or

- that this human, who lived in an age where superstition was the norm, has been raised up and embellished by the people that followed him around?


I say the latter is infinitly more likely. Even only for the simple reason that we have precedents of that one, and the first literally being impossible. That's what "impossible" means: that it can't happen according to the very laws of nature. Like: it is "impossible" to turn water into wine.

Call it occam's razor if you wish: the explanation that requires the least assumptions, is the most likely.

Option 1 above requires LOADS and LOADS of assumptions. Assumptions that aren't reasonable at all, moreover (to assume that the laws of nature were violated / suspended / defied is as unreasonable as it gets....)

Option 2 requires no assumptions at all, since we literally have precedents of exactly such things happening.

 

[Spartan]

It's just a question of likelyness...

What is more likely?
- that this human really was a supernatural being, god himself, who defied/suspended/violated physics and the laws of nature?

or

- that this human, who lived in an age where superstition was the norm, has been raised up and embellished by the people that followed him around?

I say the latter is infinitly more likely.

The historical record of multiple, independent individuals says Jesus was indeed supernatural.

And where has physics / science ever proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? We don't know that Jesus violated or suspended any laws of physics. Perhaps in a thousand years or so when we have a better handle on all that physics entails, a better determination can be made.

 

[Spartan]

1. a character in a book

2. if there was a historical jesus, then also a human around wich a whole bunch of myths and legends arose which accumulated in a religion.

You should do your homework on the historical Jesus. Here's a few books to start with:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[rrobs]

Has there ever been one example authenticated by (modern) science?

With seven billion folks in the world, surely to goodness there'd be at least one, no?

I don't know of any examples of moving mountains into the sea. Apparently nobody has believed in their innermost being that such a thing was possible. Can you blame them? After all, that's a pretty hard pill to swallow to say the least. It's not really that surprising that not even one of seven billion people believe it. But it does not negate the truth of the scriptures that if one really believed it would in fact be possible.

As you may know, Jesus grew up in Galilee. It seems they didn't think very much of him. They very well may have thought him to be an illegitimate child, a major taboo in their culture. In any case there is an interesting observation in the scriptures concerning the people in his home town.

Matt 13:58,

And he (Jesus) did not many mighty works there (Galilee) because of their unbelief.
​

We are what we are because of what we believe and we believe what we believe because of the things we've been taught by sources outside of ourselves. From early childhood, we've always been taught that mountains don't move. That's what we believe and that's what we get.

 

[Muffled]

A renegade who probably deserved what he got, given historical norms.

I believe that is most likely correct but it is definitely a jaundiced view of who Jesus is.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was probably propaganda ingeniously devised by the Romans to placate the Jews.

I believe I haven't seen any evidence of that.

 

[rrobs]

I believe that is most likely correct but it is definitely a jaundiced view of who Jesus is.

Jesus was foreordained to die in order to get us out of the mess Adam got us into. That's why he died. He loved us enough to do that. All this talk of renegade is pure speculation with no basis for truth other than one's own conjecture. It's nothing more than smoke coming up from the cerebral cortex.

 

[Muffled]

I believe he was an advanced spiritual being who was too ahead of his time and the people were not ready and made a confusing mess of the situation.

Being an Advaita follower (non-dual=God and creation are not two) I don't believe that question is correctly put. God (the One Consciousness) is incarnate in all living things but Jesus was more advanced in his evolution towards realizing that.
The historical events are lost to time but my key thought is that the event is not terribly important one way or the other to us. It is the message of love. peace and personal spiritual ascendancy that is timeless and important.

My personal thought from modern psychic sources is that he nearly died during the crucifixion, physically recovered using near miraculous abilities, and lived out his life in southern France with his wife Mary Magdalene.

But I must stress the historical events are not what is most important.

I believe that is what God is.

i believe the Bible said He came in the fullness of time.

I believe it is always the same that some are ready and some are not.

I believe I do not view it as a mess.

I believe that concept comes from a religion that is authentic and the concept lacks validity. The Bible is correct.

I believe that is not the case.

I believe Jesus already knew the truth about creation.

I believe those things are nice but not important now. Certainly spiritual ascendancy is a long term goal.

I believe what God says is much more persuasive than what a psychic says.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was foreordained to die in order to get us out of the mess Adam got us into. That's why he died. He loved us enough to do that. All this talk of renegade is pure speculation with no basis for truth other than one's own conjecture. It's nothing more than smoke coming up from the cerebral cortex.

I don't believe there is evidence to support that view.

I believe there is plenty of evidence from the worlds point of view. He was a renegade in the eyes of the Pharisees who saw him as a blasphemer. He was a renegade to the Romans who were not going to allow any king they didn't appoint.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was a manifestation on Earth of the eternal Avatar along with Buddha, Krishna, Rama and others. Every time the Avatar incarnates, his mission is to give a spiritual push and the nature of the push varies based on the conditions and people that exist at that time and place.

I do not believe that is true.