God or Human?

Dakotah · Aug 17, 2014

uoneko said:
wow, look, a link you could have easily found in a matter of seconds by yourself

Craig A. Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada. We can discount this source as proof because the author has demonstrated clear bias in his "research." As such, this evidence cannot be deemed credible.

uoneko said:
wow! another one!

John David Morris, the author of this article, is an American young earth creationist. He has been discredited numerous times, especially by many paleoanthropologists who have debunked his distorted claims about human evolution. Another fact that erases this individual's credibility is the fact that he actually believes, like his father before him, that Leviathan was a real fire breathing animal that lived in the ocean as it was mentioned in Job 41.

Therefore, this supposed proof should be viewed as suspect given this author's clear biases and propensity to distort facts presented by the scientific community.

uoneko said:
incredible how easy it is to research on your own if you're curious about the subject instead of asking someone

As for the third article, I offer you this article in response which disputes the veracity of this supposed "proof."

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1850111,00.html

inaaiam · Aug 30, 2014

Jesus is God in human form.

there is historical evidence he walked the earth and preformed miracles as the son of God.

the best is reason for Jesus being God, is because he was predicted 500 years before his birth.
The Bible states-
"Jesus' mother will be a virgin." Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.

-Keep in mind Isaiah 7:14 was written 500 years before the birth of Jesus, and that is a historical fact.

I'm all welcome for questions just don't be rude. :)

Phantom1 · Aug 31, 2014

inaaiam said:
Jesus is God in human form.

there is historical evidence he walked the earth and preformed miracles as the son of God.

the best is reason for Jesus being God, is because he was predicted 500 years before his birth.
The Bible states-
"Jesus' mother will be a virgin." Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.

-Keep in mind Isaiah 7:14 was written 500 years before the birth of Jesus, and that is a historical fact.

I'm all welcome for questions just don't be rude. :)

Not sure what Bible you're reading... I love it when folks read the Bible and come up with lines out of context.

I'd also like sources on your proof, if possible.

That 'prophecy' is often used to prophesize Jesus, when actually, it is to foretell that a great warrior will come and defeat the enemies of the king of Judah, Ahaz. This is actually seven hundred hundred years before Jesus was supposedly born, about (give or take twenty years) 700 BC. And the child was to be named Immanuel, not Jesus.

The actual prophecy, in full:

Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it. 2 When it was reported to the house of David, saying, "The Arameans have camped in Ephraim," his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind.

3Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field, 4 and say to him, 'Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. 5 'Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying, 6 "Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it," 7 thus says the Lord GOD: "It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass. 8"For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people), 9 and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last.

Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." 12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" 13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

It never says the child will be the son of god. Instead this child was meant to save the land of Judah. It was meant to be fulfilled in the king's lifetime.

Also, in the original text the word virgin was not used. Instead the word almah was used, which does not have a direct translation in English. It could mean anything from simply 'a woman who has not given birth before', or, simply, 'a young woman'.

One could argue that the prophecy was to the entire house of David, but that is just proof that words can easily be twisted in the Bible to fit the meaning desired by the reader. It is argued that it is a duel prophecy.

If this was a prophecy of Jesus' birth... what meaning would it have for Ahaz and his situation? The war was going wrong... how would a virgin birth seven hundred years later make things better for him? How would that solve his problem?

obZen · Aug 31, 2014

In my Catholic schooling, he was God because he was the son of God, but I've heard that Jesus himself is not God. So, a bit of gray area there
A priest taught me that The Father, Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are all manifestations of the Catholic god, like ice, liquid, and steam being three manifestations of water

To me, he'd literally be a demigod. Mortal mother, deity for a father.

elnoor · Aug 31, 2014

Is there any clear evidence where he says I am God worship me?

inaaiam · Sep 1, 2014

Phantom said:
Not sure what Bible you're reading... I love it when folks read the Bible and come up with lines out of context.

I'd also like sources on your proof, if possible.

That 'prophecy' is often used to prophesize Jesus, when actually, it is to foretell that a great warrior will come and defeat the enemies of the king of Judah, Ahaz. This is actually seven hundred hundred years before Jesus was supposedly born, about (give or take twenty years) 700 BC. And the child was to be named Immanuel, not Jesus.

The actual prophecy, in full:

It never says the child will be the son of god. Instead this child was meant to save the land of Judah. It was meant to be fulfilled in the king's lifetime.

Also, in the original text the word virgin was not used. Instead the word almah was used, which does not have a direct translation in English. It could mean anything from simply 'a woman who has not given birth before', or, simply, 'a young woman'.

One could argue that the prophecy was to the entire house of David, but that is just proof that words can easily be twisted in the Bible to fit the meaning desired by the reader. It is argued that it is a duel prophecy.

If this was a prophecy of Jesus' birth... what meaning would it have for Ahaz and his situation? The war was going wrong... how would a virgin birth seven hundred years later make things better for him? How would that solve his problem?

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Verbal

~Justified~ · Sep 3, 2014

A lot of people tend to get confused when it comes to the holy trinity of the Bible, so I will do my best to explain that to you.

You probably wonder how Jesus could be God and also God's son at the same time. I have also been confused by this very thing, but I have come to the following conclusion through my studies of the Bible. Do not take this for truth, as I am a fallible human who can only attempt to understand the nature of God, God is the only one who can truly understand himself.

Many people ask this question when it comes to the trinity of the Bible: How could Jesus be God but also God's son? How is this possible?

My answer: The trinity could be similar to a government, where the government is referred to as a singular being but actually consists of multiple people. The government is singular but is made up of many individuals, thus the trinity is most likely something similar to this, where the Holy Spirit, the Father (God), and Jesus Christ (God's Son) are the "government" of the universe, called God, thus they are referred to as one singular being but actually are three, this explains how they can be one but many at the same time.

Now for your original question, was Jesus God or a human? Well I believe that Jesus was a human, as the Bible teaches, and that He was the Son of God and also part of the trinity ("The Government of the Universe"), who was sent to take the punishment for our sins so that we may have eternal life in heaven. He was called "God in flesh" because he was part of the government of the universe (the trinity), which is "God".

I hope, if any of you were confused about this, I cleared it up a little bit:) (though I feel like I may have created more confusion lol)

elnoor · Sep 3, 2014

Magic Guard said:
A lot of people tend to get confused when it comes to the holy trinity of the Bible, so I will do my best to explain that to you.

You probably wonder how Jesus could be God and also God's son at the same time. I have also been confused by this very thing, but I have come to the following conclusion through my studies of the Bible. Do not take this for truth, as I am a fallible human who can only attempt to understand the nature of God, God is the only one who can truly understand himself.

Many people ask this question when it comes to the trinity of the Bible: How could Jesus be God but also God's son? How is this possible?

My answer: The trinity could be similar to a government, where the government is referred to as a singular being but actually consists of multiple people. The government is singular but is made up of many individuals, thus the trinity is most likely something similar to this, where the Holy Spirit, the Father (God), and Jesus Christ (God's Son) are the "government" of the universe, called God, thus they are referred to as one singular being but actually are three, this explains how they can be one but many at the same time.

Now for your original question, was Jesus God or a human? Well I believe that Jesus was a human, as the Bible teaches, and that He was the Son of God and also part of the trinity ("The Government of the Universe"), who was sent to take the punishment for our sins so that we may have eternal life in heaven. He was called "God in flesh" because he was part of the government of the universe (the trinity), which is "God".

I hope, if any of you were confused about this, I cleared it up a little bit:) (though I feel like I may have created more confusion lol)

No one has answered my question so I am going to ask you in any bible is there a clear text where Jesus says i am your God worship me. You say Jesus was a human as the bible teaches what about the Trinity who taught that? I am asking about the Trinity because I have been given many examples and it seems to be even those who have knowledge in the religion find a hard time explaining. So the question is if it is true why had God not made it simple clear, basically why would something so important be so vague?

ANARCHit3cht · Sep 3, 2014

Not only was he a human, but he was a dark-skinned Jew to boot.

Phantom1 · Sep 5, 2014

elnoor said:
No one has answered my question so I am going to ask you in any bible is there a clear text where Jesus says i am your God worship me. You say Jesus was a human as the bible teaches what about the Trinity who taught that? I am asking about the Trinity because I have been given many examples and it seems to be even those who have knowledge in the religion find a hard time explaining. So the question is if it is true why had God not made it simple clear, basically why would something so important be so vague?

Jesus claims to be the son of god, yes. Multiple times. He does not claim to be god, for god is a separate entity.

The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

The Trinity is considered on of the Catholicism's sacred mysteries, basically, there is no explanation of it. It is something that is meant to be a faith based personal belief alone. There are many who have some very complicated explanations of it. If you want, I suggest reading this essay from Stanford.

The Trinity, in theological terms, is a hypostases. Which appears in quite a few religions throughout history.

Believers would say it is vague because it is meant to be built on faith, not logic. You are just, well, you're just supposed to believe and not ask questions.

elnoor · Sep 5, 2014

Phantom said:
Jesus claims to be the son of god, yes. Multiple times. He does not claim to be god, for god is a separate entity.

The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

The Trinity is considered on of the Catholicism's sacred mysteries, basically, there is no explanation of it. It is something that is meant to be a faith based personal belief alone. There are many who have some very complicated explanations of it. If you want, I suggest reading this essay from Stanford.

The Trinity, in theological terms, is a hypostases. Which appears in quite a few religions throughout history.

Believers would say it is vague because it is meant to be built on faith, not logic. You are just, well, you're just supposed to believe and not ask questions.

Ok I understand in many religions some things you just have to believe in as it is part of believing in the unseen or unknown but don't you think it should at least be mentioned in the bible even if not explained. Doing my research it is believed that some priests came up with the trinity and it was never really taught or mentioned by Jesus. Who was Jesus specifically sent to? meaning was he sent to a specific time and people ( like Moses and those before him). The thing that I really never understood is historically speaking that is, it seems he was sent specifically to the children of Israel as he was from amongst them.

Phantom1 · Sep 5, 2014

elnoor said:
Ok I understand in many religions some things you just have to believe in as it is part of believing in the unseen or unknown but don't you think it should at least be mentioned in the bible even if not explained. Doing my research it is believed that some priests came up with the trinity and it was never really taught or mentioned by Jesus. Who was Jesus specifically sent to? meaning was he sent to a specific time and people ( like Moses and those before him). The thing that I really never understood is historically speaking that is, it seems he was sent specifically to the children of Israel as he was from amongst them.

Taken from Matthew 15: 21-28 NIV

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs."

"Yes it is, Lord," she said. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table."

Then Jesus said to her, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed at that moment.

elnoor · Sep 6, 2014

Phantom said:
Taken from Matthew 15: 21-28 NIV

Ok if he Jesus was sent to the people of Isreal at that time how can he possibly be proclaimed as God or son of God for the entire world. Should it not be proclaimed that he came to the entire mankind not just a specific people from a certain part of the world. Does that make sense or not? The way it seems is he is a prophet just like the ones before him who we're sent to their people. Another thing I don't understand is he is from the children of Isreal so obviously the original text was in that language making all the bibles just translations without the original to compare to. A lot of things are lost in translation is it not possible people can mis understand the context of text because there does seem to be a lot of contradictions. The bible should be the word of God and that's it, it does not need authors and people adding and taking out what they please in a way would that not go agianst the original message. How can I for certain know this is the truth if it is mentioned clearly that the bible was written by people who never even met him. This religion is the largest in the world yet what is the number of Jewish people who believe in him if he was sent to them? And for those who don't believe do they just believe in the creator without a son?

AFeralFurry · Sep 6, 2014

Coming from a non-religious person, I think he was human. An awesome as hell human that did the best he could to make the world a better place, in his mind, and try to help people, but a human nonetheless.

Bidoof FTW · Sep 7, 2014

In the Bible it talks about how Jesus was declared to be God's Son, but also a human representation of God Himself. So although people may believe that makes him a god or God. It is more of a representation of Him in human form (at least that's what I believe). Meaning that he is as close to being God as a human will ever achieve.

Phantom1 · Sep 10, 2014

elnoor said:
Ok if he Jesus was sent to the people of Isreal at that time how can he possibly be proclaimed as God or son of God for the entire world. Should it not be proclaimed that he came to the entire mankind not just a specific people from a certain part of the world. Does that make sense or not? The way it seems is he is a prophet just like the ones before him who we're sent to their people. Another thing I don't understand is he is from the children of Isreal so obviously the original text was in that language making all the bibles just translations without the original to compare to. A lot of things are lost in translation is it not possible people can mis understand the context of text because there does seem to be a lot of contradictions. The bible should be the word of God and that's it, it does not need authors and people adding and taking out what they please in a way would that not go agianst the original message. How can I for certain know this is the truth if it is mentioned clearly that the bible was written by people who never even met him. This religion is the largest in the world yet what is the number of Jewish people who believe in him if he was sent to them? And for those who don't believe do they just believe in the creator without a son?

The enter key says, "Hello." It misses you. :P

Well, that's the thing, Jewish people don't believe in him? At least not the son of god part. That's, you know, part of being Jewish.

*note I do not argue for religion, see my sig. *points*

AxeBeard McBeardAxe · Sep 22, 2014

If you want the Christian answer, it's far less complicated than you all are making it. He is a God in a Human body. You lot are assuming to be human you cannot be god, and vice versa.

Livewire · Sep 22, 2014

AxeBeard McBeardAxe said:
If you want the Christian answer, it's far less complicated than you all are making it. He is a God in a Human body. You lot are assuming to be human you cannot be god, and vice versa.

Well that's because those are mutually exclusive things; you cannot be both at the same time, biologically speaking. Jesus, along with the other demigod/half-god archetypes you see in mythology are conveniently free from this conundrum.

AxeBeard McBeardAxe · Sep 22, 2014

Livewire said:
Well that's because those are mutually exclusive things; you cannot be both at the same time, biologically speaking. Jesus, along with the other demigod/half-god archetypes you see in mythology are conveniently free from this conundrum.

"Biologically speaking"? That statement makes no sense in this context. Regardless, and again this is a Christian viewpoint, Jesus is the son of God, and yet is God. Though these are mutually exclusive things, to be all human and yet all God, Jesus was. Just like the trinity, where God is all of all three persons of the trinity. Though it makes (to us) no sense, Christianity believes it is so, and can be so because God is above what our human minds understand and what are sinful fallen world dictates to be possible.

Livewire · Sep 22, 2014

AxeBeard McBeardAxe said:
"Biologically speaking"? That statement makes no sense in this context. Regardless, and again this is a Christian viewpoint, Jesus is the son of God, and yet is God. Though these are mutually exclusive things, to be all human and yet all God, Jesus was. Just like the trinity, where God is all of all three persons of the trinity. Though it makes (to us) no sense, Christianity believes it is so, and can be so because God is above what our human minds understand and what are sinful fallen world dictates to be possible.

A flesh and bone, biological human being cannot be a deity in the sense that a deity is well, a deity. God's don't age, get cancer, and die. In most religions and mythos, they tend to be above human failings and aren't bound by the rules of biology. (Organisms are created, mature, decline and die, hopefully after reproducing and spreading their genetic codes, etc.)

Though these are mutually exclusive things, to be all human and yet all God, Jesus was.

Definition of mutually exclusive said:
Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.

Can't be simultaneously both and neither at the same time. In reality, that is. Belief systems tend to sidestep that fact, because they're beliefs and you can believe whatever you want, regardless of its veracity.

God or Human?

More options

Dakotah

inaaiam

Phantom1

[css-div="font-size: 12px; font-variant: small-cap

obZen

Kill Your Heroes

elnoor

inaaiam

~Justified~

~Working On A New Rom Hack~

elnoor

ANARCHit3cht

Call me Archie!

Phantom1

[css-div="font-size: 12px; font-variant: small-cap

elnoor

Phantom1

[css-div="font-size: 12px; font-variant: small-cap

elnoor

AFeralFurry

Bidoof FTW

[cd=font-family:carter one; font-size:13pt; color:

Phantom1

[css-div="font-size: 12px; font-variant: small-cap

AxeBeard McBeardAxe

Jarl of the PokeCommunity

Livewire

AxeBeard McBeardAxe

Jarl of the PokeCommunity

Livewire