God or Human? Page 2

Started by Splash July 31st, 2014 2:48 AM
  • 3974 views
  • 62 replies

The Void

hiiiii

Male
MOTHA RUSSIA
Seen May 29th, 2019
Posted August 9th, 2015
1,416 posts
13 Years
Assuming he is an actual historical figure - a man who spearheaded a radical off-shoot sect of Judaism that threatened social order and the "establishment" and subsequently died for it, and became a messianic figure because the new fledgling religion needed him to be so, to justify its existence and message.
Awfully convenient of a brand new radical religion, trying to win over converts, that its chief prophet just happens to also be the son of god and this faith happens to be the "true" faith of the one true God.
To oversimplify, this is just about how almost all major religions like Buddhism and Islam started out.

And subsequent generations of followers filled in the gaps at the Council of Nicaea and during the writing of the gospels in the second, third and fourth centuries C.E.
No objection, except that they weren't just followers -- they were Church Father; direct successors of the Apostles, and so by tradition were divinely inspired.

Look at it through the lens of a purely social/political movement, and things will begin to make sense and you'll see it for what it really is - Constantine's method of controlling his vast empire with a common, universal faith to unite his subjects under.
Constantine did not need Christianity to "control" the Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman Empire was well off without Christianity. The Church during Constantine's time was still viewed as a weird monotheistic cult that was incompatible with the Roman religion that was the foundation of Roman society.

Heck, Constantine was only baptized when he was on his deathbed.
Όφις ην μη φάγη όφιν, δράκων ου γενήσεται.
Male
If I'm online, it's a safe bet I'm at a computer.
Seen 1 Day Ago
Posted March 3rd, 2023
984 posts
17.3 Years
No objection, except that they weren't just followers -- they were Church Father; direct successors of the Apostles, and so by tradition were divinely inspired.
What if I told you I was divinely inspired to post this? You have no proof, and thus no reason to listen to me. Anyone can claim divine inspiration, it's just a lot easier to get uneducated sheep herders from the 1st century to believe you than it is strangers on the internet.

The church fathers at the Council of Nicaea were no more holy men than you or I. They were educated scholars who rose up in the ranks of their local christian cult and were basically ordered by Emperor Constantine to show up and standardize the mess that was christianity at the time. Estimates put more than 1800 people there. 1800 people from different parts of the Roman Empire who all disagreed on how the church should be set up, the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Judeo-Christian god, how people should repent when they've sinned, etc. If all of these church officials were divinely inspired, why weren't they all teaching the same thing already? Why was the council necessary at all? In reality, it was just a group of powerful men deciding, "This is what we are now." Nothing more.

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
To oversimplify, this is just about how almost all major religions like Buddhism and Islam started out.
Right, but Buddhists & Muslims don't tote Buddha and Muhammad around as the son of god, respectively.

No objection, except that they weren't just followers -- they were Church Father; direct successors of the Apostles, and so by tradition were divinely inspired.
"Divinely inspired" is basically tantamount to words made by man, but made to look divinely inspired so as to put those words beyond questioning by other men - "We didn't say it, God did, so you know it's true!" Awfully convenient for your message if it's infallible, coming directly from God to man. It's a good way to give gravitas and authority to your movement.


Constantine did not need Christianity to "control" the Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman Empire was well off without Christianity. The Church during Constantine's time was still viewed as a weird monotheistic cult that was incompatible with the Roman religion that was the foundation of Roman society.
You're aware that Rome spent almost the entirety of the 3nd & 4rd Centuries at war, defending the empire's borders against invasion, and fighting political and social upheaval at home. The empire was dwindling after the 2nd century CE. Rome went through more emperors in a single year (6, in 238 CE) than you and I have fingers on one hand. Wide spread social and political upheaval a "well off" empire does not make. Mind you, Constantine only became emperor after defeating the other Tetrarchs in battle and becoming the sole emperor in the West. The first thing he did as Emperor was to eneact several reforms, all across the empire, to strength it and to heal it from the civil wars and infighting. Constantine saw the new, up-and-coming religion as an opportunity to bind the empire together with a state-run religion - no more loosely-defined pagan sects and multiple Gods. It was a reform. Look at any Theocracy today and you'll see the benefits of a homogenized, state-run religion that promotes strict social and cultural order. Why else would he change centuries of traditional pagan Roman beliefs? Unless he needed to.

Heck, Constantine was only baptized when he was on his deathbed.
Just because he propagated the rise of Christianity as a major faith, doesn't necessarily mean he believed it himself. As in, the belief system wasn't for him. It was for the masses.

ShivaDF

The Scooter-riding Artist

Seen August 24th, 2017
Posted July 26th, 2017
482 posts
13.7 Years
Fundamentally, the only difference between men like Jesus or Buddha and most of us is that they consciously manifested their divine nature.
I don't whether Jesus existed or not, or whether he's some amalgamation of a bunch of different people. But I agree with Tek's comment.

Honestly, I don't think there's any kind of divide between "divine" and "everything else." One point in the universe holds the energy of the entire universe.

This is a digression, but why do non-religious people always assume that if Christ existed, he died on the cross? He could have gotten somebody else to be crucified, you know. Or there could have been some sort of gambit to keep him alive. And didn't Jesus know the people who were to put him in his tomb? And isn't it interesting how Jesus's legs weren't broken? Just saying.
FC: 3368 3076 5903

The Void

hiiiii

Male
MOTHA RUSSIA
Seen May 29th, 2019
Posted August 9th, 2015
1,416 posts
13 Years
What if I told you I was divinely inspired to post this? You have no proof, and thus no reason to listen to me. Anyone can claim divine inspiration, it's just a lot easier to get uneducated sheep herders from the 1st century to believe you than it is strangers on the internet.

The church fathers at the Council of Nicaea were no more holy men than you or I. They were educated scholars who rose up in the ranks of their local christian cult and were basically ordered by Emperor Constantine to show up and standardize the mess that was christianity at the time. Estimates put more than 1800 people there. 1800 people from different parts of the Roman Empire who all disagreed on how the church should be set up, the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Judeo-Christian god, how people should repent when they've sinned, etc. If all of these church officials were divinely inspired, why weren't they all teaching the same thing already? Why was the council necessary at all? In reality, it was just a group of powerful men deciding, "This is what we are now." Nothing more.
Like I pointed out earlier these men were directly appointed by the Apostles themselves, the closest followers of Jesus. Councils were necessary exactly because they were not teaching the same thing. After Jesus' death, the Apostles would do this -- they would gather around and discuss their understanding of Jesus' teachings and if there was an issue in their individual understanding, they would further discuss that issue until they all get it right.

To say that all their Christian converts were uneducated goat herders simply isn't true. Soldiers and wealthy men throughout the empire were converted too, and I doubt you would call Constantine an idiot.

Right, but Buddhists & Muslims don't tote Buddha and Muhammad around as the son of god, respectively.
They did something similar: Buddhists regarded Gautama as the Enlightened One while Muslims hailed Muhammad as the Holy Prophet.

"Divinely inspired" is basically tantamount to words made by man, but made to look divinely inspired so as to put those words beyond questioning by other men - "We didn't say it, God did, so you know it's true!" Awfully convenient for your message if it's infallible, coming directly from God to man. It's a good way to give gravitas and authority to your movement.
I said "by tradition". From a completely irreligious point of view, the Council of Nicaea was basically the summary of these men's understanding of scripture, which was formed and developed over the course of years.

You're aware that Rome spent almost the entirety of the 3nd & 4rd Centuries at war, defending the empire's borders against invasion, and fighting political and social upheaval at home. The empire was dwindling after the 2nd century CE. Rome went through more emperors in a single year (6, in 238 CE) than you and I have fingers on one hand. Wide spread social and political upheaval a "well off" empire does not make. Mind you, Constantine only became emperor after defeating the other Tetrarchs in battle and becoming the sole emperor in the West. The first thing he did as Emperor was to eneact several reforms, all across the empire, to strength it and to heal it from the civil wars and infighting. Constantine saw the new, up-and-coming religion as an opportunity to bind the empire together with a state-run religion - no more loosely-defined pagan sects and multiple Gods. It was a reform. Look at any Theocracy today and you'll see the benefits of a homogenized, state-run religion that promotes strict social and cultural order. Why else would he change centuries of traditional pagan Roman beliefs? Unless he needed to.
It would have been counterproductive for Constantine to maintain unity and order by introducing a weird new religion where its adherents eat their own god. The Roman religion was the heart of Roman society and it shaped the culture and greatness of the Empire. It was also flexible so it was able to borrow and loan elements from and to other beliefs, such as the Egyptian, Gothic, and Celtic religions.

If anything, it would seem as though Christianity was a major factor in the decline of the Empire. Because of Christianity, barbarian rides had increased, the army became disloyal, tax base decreased, and the entire system collapsed within 80 years after this law.

Since every neighboring barbarian tribe -- Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Alans -- were Christianized, lootings started to target the old pagan symbols of great Roman cities. In addition, this new Christian empire did not allow for the thorough elimination of the enemy. Why would a Christian obliterate another Christian? This could be further supported by the fact that of all the barbarian invasions since 395, only the Huns' were truly stopped, while the invasions of all the other, Christian tribes were not.

Constantine and his successors were definitely not theocratic rulers, no matter how much they saw themselves as such. They had no say on doctrine, and their authority was constantly being challenged by bishops -- most notably the bishop of Rome.

Just because he propagated the rise of Christianity as a major faith, doesn't necessarily mean he believed it himself. As in, the belief system wasn't for him. It was for the masses.
He did believe in it. He personally accepted it as early as his youth. Again, even if he was using Christianity to unify and control the masses then he had ultimately failed, even in unifying Christianity itself. Constantine was a follower of Arianism, a heresy as declared by the Council of Nicaea.
Όφις ην μη φάγη όφιν, δράκων ου γενήσεται.

Spinor

<i><font color="b1373f">The Lonely Physicist</font></i>

Age 27
Male
Seen February 13th, 2019
Posted October 4th, 2015
5,175 posts
17.3 Years
Jesus is genetically engineered magician. How else can you give a virgin birth to a dude, and one with an escape act that went for three whole days?

(Or you know, Jesus was some human and the Bible is a collection of scientifically and historically inconsistent and unreliable accounts and myths. But don't mind me. I was a troubled child who liked to ask too many questions.)

Alexander Nicholi

work hard, play hard

Age 25
Male
Research Triangle / Jakarta
Seen February 15th, 2023
Posted March 5th, 2021
5,498 posts
13.5 Years
Even from a semi-secular point of view, it still seems to me that the Jewish are still the only ones with a true covenant with God (judging from how history has been with them). Islam shot off from a conflict with Abraham choosing his wife's kid over the actual firstborn bore from a mistress, and as you've seen that hasn't ended up well. Christian offshoots are even weirder than that, likely because their deviation from Judaism is so much more complex.

As for Jesus, I imagine the thing was born out of misconstruation of fact into fiction (what the Bible's best known for). He could've wore robes of linen and bore gold or he could've been like that entity in Revalation who wore sack clothing or something idr. Who knows ¯\(°_o)/¯
the beat goes on (ノ^o^;)ノ
ヽ(;^o^ヽ) the beat goes on
the beat goes on (ノ^o^;)ノ
ヽ(;^o^ヽ) the beat goes on
( don’t stop the groovin’ )

Phantom

Uh, I didn't do it

Age 32
Female
Minnesota
Seen September 18th, 2017
Posted September 18th, 2017
1,182 posts
11.8 Years
Hmm.

Since there is no god and I doubt Jesus existed, neither.

If Jesus did exist he was a hippy blasphemer who most likely had a few screws loose and thought he was the son of god.

uoneko

space princess

Age 24
Female
california
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 16th, 2014
42 posts
8.9 Years
being the jew that i am, i'd go ahead and say human
and phantom, i can understand how you don't believe in god, but it's really inaccurate to say jesus didn't exist. there is so much historical evidence that shows he has walked this earth. to say that he hadn't wouldn't just be a disagreement of opinion, it would be false. it's understandable to believe that he isn't the son of god if you'd like, which i believe, but to say he never existed? well, that's just incorrect.

my friend code is 0061-0429-2432
my friend safari is steel, with mawile and forretress
Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
being the jew that i am, i'd go ahead and say human
and phantom, i can understand how you don't believe in god, but it's really inaccurate to say jesus didn't exist. there is so much historical evidence that shows he has walked this earth. to say that he hadn't wouldn't just be a disagreement of opinion, it would be false. it's understandable to believe that he isn't the son of god if you'd like, which i believe, but to say he never existed? well, that's just incorrect.
Can you please cite archaeological evidence that definitively supports the existence of Jesus. The bible is not a historical document, in that it is merely a series of stories haphazardly, and often full of contradictions, put together. All indications are that the character "Jesus" is merely a combination of a good number of people from different sources. Since most religions borrow from other religions or beliefs in order to "convince" people to convert, it's logical to believe that there wasn't any one person named Jesus.
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

uoneko

space princess

Age 24
Female
california
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 16th, 2014
42 posts
8.9 Years
Can you please cite archaeological evidence that definitively supports the existence of Jesus. The bible is not a historical document, in that it is merely a series of stories haphazardly, and often full of contradictions, put together. All indications are that the character "Jesus" is merely a combination of a good number of people from different sources. Since most religions borrow from other religions or beliefs in order to "convince" people to convert, it's logical to believe that there wasn't any one person named Jesus.

i never said my source was the bible, and you can literally just google it and plenty of evidence will show up.

my friend code is 0061-0429-2432
my friend safari is steel, with mawile and forretress
Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
i never said my source was the bible, and you can literally just google it and plenty of evidence will show up.
Google <> evidence. I asked if you could cite an archaeological find that proves without a doubt that Jesus was a living breathing person. The claim was yours, and I asked you to back up that claim. It's not, therefore, my responsibility to prove your assertion.
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

uoneko

space princess

Age 24
Female
california
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 16th, 2014
42 posts
8.9 Years
Google <> evidence. I asked if you could cite an archaeological find that proves without a doubt that Jesus was a living breathing person. The claim was yours, and I asked you to back up that claim. It's not, therefore, my responsibility to prove your assertion.
wow, look, a link you could have easily found in a matter of seconds by yourself
wow! another one!
incredible how easy it is to research on your own if you're curious about the subject instead of asking someone

my friend code is 0061-0429-2432
my friend safari is steel, with mawile and forretress

Phantom

Uh, I didn't do it

Age 32
Female
Minnesota
Seen September 18th, 2017
Posted September 18th, 2017
1,182 posts
11.8 Years
and phantom, i can understand how you don't believe in god, but it's really inaccurate to say jesus didn't exist. there is so much historical evidence that shows he has walked this earth. to say that he hadn't wouldn't just be a disagreement of opinion, it would be false. it's understandable to believe that he isn't the son of god if you'd like, which i believe, but to say he never existed? well, that's just incorrect.
You did read my post right? Where I said I 'doubt'; 'doubt' meaning the possibility that he did. And then my next sentence where I explain that if my doubt wasn't correct, what I thought he was?

Also, there is much reason for doubt, that I will explain here, to explain said doubt.

The discussion on whether Jesus was an actual being that walked the Earth, meaning that a man existed - during 0AD to approximately 33 AD, or 0CE-33CE - matching descriptions and events noted to be attributed to his person, is called 'historical Jesus'.

In fact there are many different theories attributed to historical Jesus, that can lead to understandable doubt that a man, as described in the Bible, never existed as described, or was a completely different person entirely.

Let's look first into what is commonly understood as fact, Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, and what empirical evidence we have for it.

First, there are relics. A relic is a religious object that is associated to a Saint or religious figure of importance. This can be anything from a literal piece of a saint, a toenail for instance, or an item, a piece of the crucifixion cross. There are many of these objects and they were a common form of business for the early church, "Here have a saint's earwax!" Other relics were commonly taken back from the Crusades, like water from the river Jordan, for example, was a hot commodity. People would travel hundreds of miles and pay their life's worth for such an item. And every Catholic church HAS to have a relic beneath their altar or they are not officially seen as a church.

Now, what relics do we have to associate with Jesus, and are they sufficient to place as empirical evidence?

The Shroud of Turin is a common story within the church. It is claimed to be the shroud in which Jesus' body was buried in the tomb. It bears a negative, so to speak, of a body that was most likely crucified, and the face bears much likeness to that which is familiar to many as Jesus. Though the Shroud is a falsehood. When it was dated it did not date to the time of Jesus, but rather the 14th century. Even without the dating, it is impossible to know if that was him. Many, many people were crucified over history. It's a needle in a haystack, honestly.

Pieces of the True Cross, the cross that Jesus was killed on, exist all over the world. Many are used as relics for churches, others, family treasures... but here's the thing, there are too many of them. It is said that if they were to be put back together it would be enough to build a ship. The Nails of the cross have also allegedly been found, but they could easily have been from one of the many, many, many other crucifixions in history, especially during that time period.

As for textual knowledge, there is little to go on. Most are confirmed fake one way or another.

Many who believe he existed as the story says, are gripping at the straws of majority opinion.

Now let's look at the Bible, the largest evidence that he existed. You can link to barely known archaeological sites as much as you want, but still the strongest evidence is the Bible, sadly enough. And as some one already said here, it's not a historical document.

The Bible contradicts itself in so many ways, and the story of Jesus, the Gospels, are no different. There are four Gospels that are in the current Bible. I say current because many many books were removed from the Bible or never accepted, many contradicting the others in amazing ways, like the Gospel of Judas, which obviously was never added in any version. It disagrees in many things, some small, others notsomuch. There are many things that happened in that time that can be confirmed. Others that cannot. IE: The Massacre of the Innocents, of which there is no evidence of other than Biblical or religious texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Phantom

Uh, I didn't do it

Age 32
Female
Minnesota
Seen September 18th, 2017
Posted September 18th, 2017
1,182 posts
11.8 Years
how smart and clever you are to find a loophole to defend yourself! you really know how to debate huh.
There is a reason I said doubt, not "GUYS HE NEVER EXISTED." Doubt leaves the opportunity to be proven wrong. My explanation is hardly a 'loophole'. I'm atheist, not ignorant. Should enough empirical evidence appear to confirm a man named Jesus existed and did the things they say he did, then perhaps I will concede his existence as a man to be a fact rather than speculation.

And yes, I can debate. Thank you.

EDIT: After all, this section is called Discussions & Debates, right?
Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
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.

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.

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
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Male
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 31st, 2014
11 posts
8.7 Years
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. :)
Youtube- inaaiam

Phantom

Uh, I didn't do it

Age 32
Female
Minnesota
Seen September 18th, 2017
Posted September 18th, 2017
1,182 posts
11.8 Years
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

Kill Your Heroes

Age 32
Male
/tmp/obZen/.locale
Seen January 1st, 2021
Posted December 27th, 2020
397 posts
17.5 Years
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.


obZen on Pokemon Showdown
Male
Seen September 3rd, 2014
Posted August 31st, 2014
11 posts
8.7 Years
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
Youtube- inaaiam

~Justified~

~Working On A New Rom Hack~

Male
Seen November 23rd, 2015
Posted February 26th, 2015
402 posts
9.5 Years
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)
"I Believe In Jesus Christ As My Lord and Savior,"
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends,"
John 15:13

Pokemon Rom Hacker
Looking For:
Anyone willing to help with the game.
Pokemon Team Building Guide

elnoor

Male
villege hidden in the leaf
Seen February 8th, 2015
Posted September 19th, 2014
143 posts
8.8 Years
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?

Phantom

Uh, I didn't do it

Age 32
Female
Minnesota
Seen September 18th, 2017
Posted September 18th, 2017
1,182 posts
11.8 Years
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.