[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In context, he claims both — that his father is God and that this makes him also God.

I'd rather leave debates of Christian doctrine to Christians, but I'd like to discuss this point a bit further. You have someone claiming that he is glorified not by himself but by an entity external to him, God. How exactly does that make the speaker also God?

There are some statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels that imply he viewed himself as either a supernatural being or one equivalent to God. There are other statements (just as many, if not more than in the former category) in which he implies he is only a human working on behalf of God. The two classes of statements, when taken together, are manifestly philosophically inconsistent and incompatible. In other words, those two classes of statements cannot both be true, and if one personage allegedly uttered them both, then one class must invariably be false. There are some possibilities to account for those inconsistencies: either, a) the first class of statement was not accurately transmitted in the gospels or was placed there falsely, b) the second class of statement was not accurately transmitted in the gospels or was placed there falsely, c) Jesus was lying or was in error when he made the first class of statement, or d) Jesus was lying or was in error when he made the second class of statement. There are no other logical possibilities. And if one wishes to contend Jesus ever lied, even for a holy cause, one should keep in mind the following Torah verse: "God is not a man, that He should lie. . ." (Numbers 23:19).

Btw, from a broad Jewish perspective, all of humanity are the children of God. I too, am a son of God.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by goMac 

If you look at church history, Jesus's original followers did not think he was devine. When the Romans converted, they added the idea of Jesus being a devine figure. It fit better with the ideas they brought over from paganism. This caused issues, the religion wasn't united. The old believers still insisted that Jesus was a man, and the newer converts thought Jesus was a god.

Umm have you even read the Bible, the first few verses of the Gospel of John attribute divine nature to Jesus and throughout the Gospels He is proclaim as God and he himself acknowledges that he is God. Not to be out done, the pauline reaffirm that as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, letters of John etc.

Take a look at the original creed, especially the end:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God] , Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."

Now here is the end. This was written specifically to address the original believers who still believed Jesus was a man:

Emphasis added - the quote but you do not see

"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."

Nice, huh?

I actually have no idea what point your trying to make here. The creed you show certainly attribute divinity to Jesus

The reason Jesus was actually killed was not that anyone particularly hated him. I'm sure the Jewish leadership was annoyed with him. But you have to understand, the last time a "prophet" entered Jeruselam, he caused a riot and got many people killed. Jesus was killed for local security reasons, not because anyone really had it out for Jesus.

You're right, the Jews of that time mistook some of the passages and thought that the Messiah to install a political kingdom, that is over throw the roman yoke. There are plenty of passages, such as in the book of Isaiah (read chapter 53) that show the Messiah must first suffer and pay for the sins of man. Regardless of the reasons why the Romans wanted him dead and the jewish leadership he willing went to the cross to pay of our sins. Since you cannot even see that within the creed I suppose I'm not going to beat a dead horse and it go at that.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I don't doubt Jesus wasn't important. However, I think Jesus was more of a political reformer, not a devine prophet. Martin Luther King made mention of God many times in his interactions with the public. Does this make him a religious prophet? No, he was a political figure.

If you look at church history, Jesus's original followers did not think he was devine. When the Romans converted, they added the idea of Jesus being a devine figure. It fit better with the ideas they brought over from paganism. This caused issues, the religion wasn't united. The old believers still insisted that Jesus was a man, and the newer converts thought Jesus was a god.

Finally the Church met in 325 and actually voted on what they thought was correct. This is really where the Church first started editing history. It was decided that they would compromise. Jesus would be divine, but he wouldn't be a god. Instead, the Holy Trinity was created.

You can find the proof of this all happening in every mass. At this meeting, which took place in Nicaea, the Nicaean creed was written. The Nicaean Creed was written to outline exactly what the Church's dogma would be.

Take a look at the original creed, especially the end:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."

Now here is the end. This was written specifically to address the original believers who still believed Jesus was a man:

"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."

Nice, huh?

Jesus was probably an extremely bright and important guy. But divinity? No, the Romans worked that into the dogma.

The reason Jesus was actually killed was not that anyone particularly hated him. I'm sure the Jewish leadership was annoyed with him. But you have to understand, the last time a "prophet" entered Jeruselam, he caused a riot and got many people killed. Jesus was killed for local security reasons, not because anyone really had it out for Jesus.

i see you take Dan Brown books very seriously, nothing wrong with that I guess

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

i see you take Dan Brown books very seriously, nothing wrong with that I guess

I didn't see anything in there directly out of Dan Brown. What did you see?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by undotwa 

Unless everything that is written in the gospels and epistles are wrong, there is no way that Jesus could merely be a political reformer.

I think the entire point of these claims is that the gospels are wrong.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Except for a few minor details.
first his disciples litterly gave up everything and all but one apostle died a marytr. I don't know too many people willing to die for a lie.

Radical Muslims do it all the time. They are willing to Die for a lie and for Allah.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think the entire point of these claims is that the gospels are wrong.

That's fine. But from what is he basing his claim that Jesus was merely a political reformer?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd rather leave debates of Christian doctrine to Christians, but I'd like to discuss this point a bit further. You have someone claiming that he is glorified not by himself but by an entity external to him, God. How exactly does that make the speaker also God?

There are some statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels that imply he viewed himself as either a supernatural being or one equivalent to God. There are other statements (just as many, if not more than in the former category) in which he implies he is only a human working on behalf of God. The two classes of statements, when taken together, are manifestly philosophically inconsistent and incompatible. In other words, those two classes of statements cannot both be true, and if one personage allegedly uttered them both, then one class must invariably be false. There are some possibilities to account for those inconsistencies: either, a) the first class of statement was not accurately transmitted in the gospels or was placed there falsely, b) the second class of statement was not accurately transmitted in the gospels or was placed there falsely, c) Jesus was lying or was in error when he made the first class of statement, or d) Jesus was lying or was in error when he made the second class of statement. There are no other logical possibilities. And if one wishes to contend Jesus ever lied, even for a holy cause, one should keep in mind the following Torah verse: "God is not a man, that He should lie. . ." (Numbers 23:19).

The fact is that assertions of Christ's divinity and humanity are made in all four gospels. It's not that one gospel gives merely a human portrait while another is merely divine. There are several things that must be considered. Throughout the gospels, there is a deliberate attempt by Jesus to withhold information about himself and convey it gradually to its disciples. He often instructs those he cured to 'tell no one'. To put it one way - if Jesus Christ said flat out from the very beginning that he was God, no one would believe him. There wouldn't be a Christian church - he would be condemned to death as a madman. It is clear that the disciples themselves had very little idea on who Jesus was. In Matthew's Gospel, it was not until Peter's proclamation "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" (correct me if I'm mistaken) that we have a clear statement of Christ's sonship, divinity and Messianic role. Before this statement, we have merely allusions.

Many of the statements that seem to imply that Jesus is not God can actually be interpreted from another angle. For instance, when Jesus says "Why do you call me good, for no-one is good but God alone?", he is not rebuking the man or denying his divinity. But rather, Jesus here is trying to get the man to understand the full implication of his words.

As I had pointed out in a previous post, the most important thing we must always keep in mind is that from a Christian perspective, Christ has two natures: human and divine. Very briefly, I have spoken about this from a sacrificial point of view (however, there is much more to it than what I had written!). Interspersed throughout the gospels we see elements of Christ's humanity and his divinity. If Christ had only a divine nature, he could not suffer and therefore he could not offer an actual sacrifice (as if one does not suffer, one is actually not offering anything at all... think of the story of the poor widow and the rich man and their offerings in the temple). When the Church speaks of this hypostatic union, she is not interpolating something for convenience (i.e. attempting to reconcile two seemingly contradictory truths) but she is trying to explain a truth that is in fact so fundamentally necessary for the fulfillment of our salvation. Christ's sacred humanity is so intrinsic to the Christian faith. His sufferings and joys have been the subject of Christian meditation for millenia and offer us all a supreme model of virtue to which we can aspire.

Christ does not pretend to be anything else than what he is in the scriptures - sharing both a human and divine nature.

Btw, from a broad Jewish perspective, all of humanity are the children of God. I too, am a son of God.

No different in Christianity.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Umm have you even read the Bible, the first few verses of the Gospel of John attribute divine nature to Jesus and throughout the Gospels He is proclaim as God and he himself acknowledges that he is God. Not to be out done, the pauline reaffirm that as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, letters of John etc.

First of all, I am talking only about the gospels since they impute Jesus with specific statements. And I did note that some of his supposed statements imply he thought himself to be supernatural or even equivalent to God. You did not address the other class of statement I referred to previously.

You're right, the Jews of that time mistook some of the passages and thought that the Messiah to install a political kingdom, that is over throw the roman yoke.

The purpose of the Messiah in Judaism is to be a descendant of David through the line of Solomon who is legitimately anointed by a Jewish prophet, who restores all of Israel to observance of the commandments, is victorious in the wars against Israel's enemies, who restores Holy Temple service and who, most importantly, ushers in world peace and prosperity, based on unity of belief in the one true God. And the Hebrew Scriptures states that he will not relent until he accomplishes all of these things. Victory in the battles of Israel is one important part, but it's only one. The blunt truth is that Jesus met none of these qualifications.

There are plenty of passages,

Please provide your best proof. However, before you do, you may want to recognize that the field of proof texting has been well trodden; furthermore, from a Jewish persepective the case is closed without a doubt. (I'll respond to the Isaiah's Suffering Servant below.)

such as in the book of Isaiah (read chapter 53) that show the Messiah must first suffer and pay for the sins of man.

As a preface, it should be noted the passage you know as Isaiah 53 is a terrible translation if you're using sources based on KJV. However, even if we were to use KJV, Jesus is still obviously precluded. The suffering servant God is referring to in those passages is the nation of Israel. He states it outright:

"But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham My friend. You whom I drew from the ends of the earth and called from its far corners, to whom I said: You are My servant; I chose you, I have not rejected you-fear not, for I am with you, be not frightened, for I am your creator; I strengthen you and I help you, I uphold you with My victorious right hand." -Isaiah 41:8-10

Some Christians have trouble understanding the servant being Israel, but the servant was identified by name. Also, read the previous chapter, Isaiah 52, and you'll see that God is referring to the redemption of Israel from exile and the disgrace of the nations that victimized Israel and held it captive. Here again, just in the verses preceding Isaiah 53, the servant is again identified as Israel. Besides that hugely important point, the verses of Isaiah 53 outright do not apply to Jesus. Here is just a sampling: It is said that the kings of many nations shall shut their mouths and be astonished because of surprise over the servant's triumph, but the opposite is the case - most nations of the world embraced Jesus quite quickly. It is said the servant was despised and rejected by men, but according to the Christian Bible he had a large following and was famous in the region. It says that the servant was afflicted, yet did not open his mouth. Did not Jesus supposedly open his mouth many a time to his enemies? It says the servant was brought like a lamb to the slaughter but was dumb and did not open his mouth. Did not Jesus supposedly cry out on the cross? A proper translation of Isaiah 53:10 is "The Lord desired to opprress him, and if his soul would acknowledge guilt he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of the Lord would succeed in his hand." The servant's soul had to acknowledge guilt for him to be blessed with offspring and long days. Christians belileve Jesus to be sinless, without guilt. In addition, note that it would make no sense for God to grant himself any of the things that verse promises (offspring and long life). They also believe he was killed at the young age of 33 and had no offspring. I also bring up 53:10 because it shows clearly that the servant is separate from God, as many of the verses do. That verse states that God desired to oppress the servant - Christians must believe that God desired to oppress himself, which makes absolutely no sense on a variety of levels. The closing verses state the narrator (one of the gentile kings) will assign him a portion from the multitudes and divide with him the mighty as spoils because of his service to the world and to God. This passage cannot refer to the Christian deity because a deity would have no need for rewards from earthly kings. Isaiah 53 does not refer to Jesus - the verses specifically preclude it.

I want to comment on an accurate translation of verse 53:5, which many Christians base a lot of their claim on: "He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds, we were healed." Let me show you how this applies to the nation of Israel. Israel was pained (but note that it does not say killed) because of the nations' rebellious sins and oppressed because of their evil. And indeed, that is exactly the case - as I have said a number of times here, the nations have pained us with things like Roman genocide, crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, the Holocaust, intifadas, etc. The nations have benefited from persecuting us - Jews have so often served, and continue to serve, as the very convenient scapegoat for the ills of nations. And by wounding Jews, the nations have been healed or strengthened, for example the Ishmaelites who gain strength and cohesion from hatred of the Jewish people.

This isn't an Isaiah 53 thread so I'll end there for now, but If you want to learn more, one source I recommend is Messiah Truth

Since you cannot even see that within the creed I suppose I'm not going to beat a dead horse and it go at that.

I wanted to let you know I did not mention the Nicene Creed; that was another poster.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'd rather leave debates of Christian doctrine to Christians, but I'd like to discuss this point a bit further. You have someone claiming that he is glorified not by himself but by an entity external to him, God. How exactly does that make the speaker also God?

It doesn't, but the statement where he claims to be God does. Which is exactly I said. (There are also other verses where he claims to be one with his father, which is horrendously vague, but I suppose it reconciles the ideas a bit.)

Incidentally, there are several Christian theologies where it is possible to to say that Jesus was both a man and God — "God made flesh" and all that.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

How do you borrow a tomb?

Simple, he was poor, and from Galilee. Joseph of Arumathea offered his tomb as a resting place.

Ancient Jewish funeral rites consisted of allowing a body to decompose, then placing the bones into an ossuary, which could then have been transported back to his hometown.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by undotwa 

The fact is that assertions of Christ's divinity and humanity are made in all four gospels.

You may view it that way. But then why are Matthew, Mark and Luke referred to as the synoptic gospels? They are referred to that way because they are mostly the same textually, with relatively slight variations in some stories. The variations likely came with age, with the first gospel probably being Mark, which ends without any physical appearance of the supposedly resurrected deity. So you have Mark at one end and John, which is comparatively late material that differs much more widely with the synoptic gospels. What one seems to see is progressive embellishmment, rather than a cohesive tapestry of theological claims.

It's not that one gospel gives merely a human portrait while another is merely divine.

I never made that claim.

[Throughout the gospels, there is a deliberate attempt by Jesus to withhold information about himself and convey it gradually to its disciples. He often instructs those he cured to 'tell no one'. To put it one way - if Jesus Christ said flat out from the very beginning that he was God, no one would believe him. There wouldn't be a Christian church - he would be condemned to death as a madman. It is clear that the disciples themselves had very little idea on who Jesus was.

Why would it have been necessary for him to conceal his identity? If, as according to Christianity, his purpose had been to suffer and die on earth as an eternal atonement for all of humanity's sins, of what purpose would it be to lengthen the process? Why not simply declare one's self divine and face the punishment to complete the mission? I don't see why things had to be hidden. And as I said, if Jesus is believed to have hidden things from people, that in my mind counts as deception; God does not lie.

In Matthew's Gospel, it was not until Peter's proclamation "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" (correct me if I'm mistaken) that we have a clear statement of Christ's sonship, divinity and Messianic role. Before this statement, we have merely allusions.

I am not a scholar of the Christian holy text, but again my question is, of what purpose would mere allusions and contradictory denials be? Christians base their faith chiefly on belief in a resurrection, correct? If so, what would it have profited Jesus to wait any length of time after figuring out the mission he was supposedly on?

Many of the statements that seem to imply that Jesus is not God can actually be interpreted from another angle. For instance, when Jesus says "Why do you call me good, for no-one is good but God alone?", he is not rebuking the man or denying his divinity. But rather, Jesus here is trying to get the man to understand the full implication of his words.

Okay, you lost me there. He's not rebuking the man? What do you mean he was trying to get the man to understand the full implication of his words? Do you believe he was asking a rhetorical question, hinting to the man his true identity? I don't see that from the verse or its context.

As I had pointed out in a previous post, the most important thing we must always keep in mind is that from a Christian perspective, Christ has two natures: human and divine.

I know that is an article of faith for Christians, but to most of the non-Christian world it is absurd. God cannot be 100% one thing and 100% something else, for that adds up to 200%. For Christian belief to make sense numerically, one would have to contend that the godly/mortal split was something like 50-50. And anything that is less than God is not God, at least according to Judaism. In Judaism, God is a wholly supernatural force, immortal force.

If Christ had only a divine nature, he could not suffer and therefore he could not offer an actual sacrifice (as if one does not suffer, one is actually not offering anything at all... think of the story of the poor widow and the rich man and their offerings in the temple).

And yet, how can something have two contradictory natures at one time? If such a being were entirely divine, as Christians claim, then there would be no suffering. If someone were entirely human, there would be total suffering. You cannot have both at the same time. At least, I don't recall the gospels claiming Jesus said anything like, "I am suffering now, but I'm not, all at the very same time because I am both human and god!"

As for the example of the rich man and the poor widow in the Temple, I am not familiar with that tale, although I can surmise the general content from what you have written. I will say that even the richest human being on earth suffers, even the richest human being may pray, and even the richest human being sins (since wealth and righteousness have nothing to do with one another), so only God can judge each human being's worship and repentance.

When the Church speaks of this hypostatic union, she is not interpolating something for convenience (i.e. attempting to reconcile two seemingly contradictory truths) but she is trying to explain a truth that is in fact so fundamentally necessary for the fulfillment of our salvation.

I am not familar with the term hypostatic union. I do know about the trinity doctrine and the fact that many Christian theologians consider it a paradox. As respectfully I can state it, I consider Christian belief in a fully god and fully mortal being to be irrational and irreconcilable. I know that my religion teaches that while there are esoteric spiritual truths beyond human comprehension, the essential truths humanity is held responsible for are fully within our power of comprehension and within our grasp. For a supreme power to hold humanity to account for a critical truth that could not be rationally comprehended or explained would be evil and cruel.

No different in Christianity.

Then why do Christians see so much significance in him allegedly claiming to be the son of God? If we are all sons and daughters of God, that claim should be of no importance to Christians from the standpoint of divinity. However, if one were to take the text at its word and assume Jesus to be "the son of God" in a Christian sense, then Jesus would logically be a creation of God and consequently a lower or demigod. Such would be polytheism.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yet, how can something have two contradictory natures at one time?

Isn't that the essence of god? Can he create a rock he can't lift?

How was he created?

The answers to those questions usually don't make sense either.

[Hawkeye_a]

Trying to use the dimension of "logic" (the way we have defined it), to the dimension of supernaturals is like trying to get oil and water to mix. Shake it up enough and it might seem mixed for a brief period, but ultimately it will seperate.

You can try to use logic/physical laws/chemical laws, etc...to try and justify your beliefs or to try and disprove others'...but ultimately your argument using those rules will break down for any religion claiming supernatural origins. If Jesus claimes to be God, son of God, and a messenger.... it might seem completely irrational and impossible...but is it any more impossible than the fundamental assumption that there is a God in the first place ?

Living in the middle east, we (Christians) were surrounded by muslims "disprving" christianing with such arguments almostt of a daily basis....the same people who have a plethorah of beliefs/laws that border on the insane, cause they consider it "worship".

Whats the point ?.... you beleive what you want, ill beleive what i want, as long as your religion teaches you to be a good person to other's without imposing yourself on people of different faiths....good on ya. As far as God, son of God etc.... we'll get those questions answered after our lifetime thats for sure.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Isn't that the essence of god? Can he create a rock he can't lift?

Uh, no. That's a classic brain teaser, but it's not the essence of God, to my mind. The answer I have to that question is that God operates according to His established attributes. Jews are among those groups who believe God is omni* - "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent." He does not contradict His nature. Nothing is too formidable for Him, for such a concept of something being too difficult for an omnipotent being is irrational. God refers to Himself as a holy, and therefore he cannot be unholy. God possesses all of those omni* attributes, and human beings have none of those. The God of the Jewish people would never, ever completely debase Himself to assume mortal flesh and contravene all of those attributes. Such a thing is completely antithetical to Judaism, and speaking personally and in all honesty, it's a disgusting concept to me.

How was he created?

He was not created, He always was and always will be. We are the created beings. "I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." -Isaiah 44:6.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh, no. That's a classic brain teaser, but it's not the essence of God, to my mind. The answer I have to that question is that God operates according to His established attributes. Jews are among those groups who believe God is omni* - "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent." He does not contradict His nature. Nothing is too formidable for Him, for such a concept of something being too difficult for an omnipotent being is irrational.

Then I would think being human and divine would not be too formidable for him.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He was not created, He always was and always will be. We are the created beings. "I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." -Isaiah 44:6.

That seems pretty impossible... just like being human and divine.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

God refers to Himself as a holy, and therefore he cannot be unholy. God possesses all of those omni* attributes, and human beings have none of those. The God of the Jewish people would never, ever completely debase Himself to assume mortal flesh and contravene all of those attributes. Such a thing is completely antithetical to Judaism, and speaking personally and in all honesty, it's a disgusting concept to me.

I've got to say you an incredibly disdainful view of what being human is. From a religious view, I find that quite ridiculous. If we were created in his image, than he does not debase himself to merely assume a another form based on himself.

Wouldn't becoming a lit plant be more debasing?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Trying to use the dimension of "logic" (the way we have defined it), to the dimension of supernaturals is like trying to get oil and water to mix. Shake it up enough and it might seem mixed for a brief period, but ultimately it will seperate.

I disagree vehemently. We can and must apply logic to the supernatural as much as possible. We cannot readily apply scientific principles to religion, but we can definitely apply logic. If you believe in a higher power who is responsible for our existence, then you must also believe that He made us logical beings. He gave us the power to evaluate the universe based on what we know of it, and as a Jew I believe He gave us prophets and sages, the Torah, the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures and the great works of the sages that accompany it, in order to elevate our holiness and enlighten us. If He had not wanted us to use reason, he would not have endowed us with the capacity. If He had not wanted us to have spiritual enlightenment, he would not have granted it to us. We are to use, and benefit from, both, so it's natural that there is an intersection between the two. Furthermore, if reason can yield truth, a religion of truth must be reasonable.

Certainly having that kernel of faith that serves as a springboard is a prerequisite to rationally evaluating religion. I as a Jew possess faith, but it is faith backed by reason. I know that I cannot verify God or my religion to the satisfaction of rigorous science, but I can amply verify it to my own rigorous standard. I know as a basis the fact that there is something beyond me and the purely physical. And although I am a born Jew, I have critically evaluated the major religions on earth. And I know for a fact that of all the religions (and spiritual frameworks), Judaism is obviously the religion for me from my rational standpoint, not because of blind devotion.

You can try to use logic/physical laws/chemical laws, etc...to try and justify your beliefs or to try and disprove others'...but ultimately your argument using those rules will break down for any religion claiming supernatural origins.

Well, as I said, science cannot readily prove religion, and that's for a few reasons. However, reason and logic can guide us to truth, and if you believe religion is truth, it should be compatible with reason. One of the blessings we make over the Torah is a blessing thanking God for giving us the Torah of emes - truth. Judaism is based on truth. God even tells us to use reason when discussing repentance from sin: "Come now, let us reason, says the Lord. If your sins prove to be like crimson, they will become white as snow; if they prove to be as red as crimson dye, they shall become as wool." -Isaiah 1:18

If Jesus claimes to be God, son of God, and a messenger.... it might seem completely irrational and impossible...but is it any more impossible than the fundamental assumption that there is a God in the first place ?

Yes, in the eyes of a Jew it is infinitely more impossible. The Jew holds (or is supposed to hold) the existence of God as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures to be axiomatic. Jewish reason states God's existence is beyond any doubt. A Jew sees the fingerprint of a supreme being on all of creation, and his religion gives him an immense understanding of God. But to shift to a radical and completely foreign/incompatible view such as the Christian one is unfathomable from a Jewish perspective because Christian doctrine fundamentally violates Jewish logic and the most basic tenets of Judaism.

Living in the middle east, we (Christians) were surrounded by muslims "disprving" christianing with such arguments almostt of a daily basis....the same people who have a plethorah of beliefs/laws that border on the insane, cause they consider it "worship".

For the record, although it may look that I am trying to disprove Christianity, that is not my intention. This thread deals with the most sensitive Christian topic, on which Christianity hinges. In trying to discuss this topic, the conversation winds through Christians making claims about the Christian deity to which I have felt it proper to respond. I have responded with the Jewish perspective. In addition, for the record, you should know that my arguments come from only the Jewish perspective, and any extent to which my arguments may or may not be similar to Muslim ones is based on coincidence as well as the strict monotheistic base Islam got from Judaism. (FWIW, I am not necessarily saying Christianity isn't monotheistic, but that it is a muddled monotheism if it can be classified as monotheism.)

Whats the point ?.... you beleive what you want, ill beleive what i want, as long as your religion teaches you to be a good person to other's without imposing yourself on people of different faiths....good on ya.

Please forgive me if you think I am trying to impose my faith on anyone else. However, we disagree about the aim of religion. Judaism is not just a set of moral precepts. Secular law can provide that. In my opinion, Judaism offers the truth of the universe and how human beings should relate to it - to themselves, to the rest of creation, and most importantly, to God. Thus, my core religious beliefs matter a great deal.

As far as God, son of God etc.... we'll get those questions answered after our lifetime thats for sure.

If that works for you, God bless. But I as a Jew I believe myself to be instructed by God to obey Him and keep His commandments to the best of my ability. You as a Christian are held to a different standard. The details may not be important to you, but the details of my religion are the basis of my life.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Then I would think being human and divine would not be too formidable for him.

No, in response to your rock question I was saying that God making a rock too heavy for Him to lift would be illogical and abusrd because it would be contrary to His established attributes. Just as assuming a human form and being killed would be illogical and absurd because it would be contrary to His established attributes. It's not that it would be too hard for Him, it's that it makes absolutely no sense.

That seems pretty impossible... just like being human and divine.

No, there being one eternal God is a necessary component of monotheistic belief in a supreme being. A monotheistic supreme being must be eternal to be supreme, for if a supreme being had an expiration date it would not be supreme. A supreme being also must be greater than all of its creations.

I've got to say you an incredibly disdainful view of what being human is. From a religious view, I find that quite ridiculous. If we were created in his image, than he does not debase himself to merely assume a another form based on himself. Wouldn't becoming a lit plant be more debasing?

I don't have a disdainful view of human beings. I simply know that while we are marvelous products of our creator and that even in this state we are capable of remarkable things, including soaring to great spiritual heights, we nonetheless are merely flesh with a portion of His spirit animating us. We hunger, thirst and feel pain throughout our lives - both physial and mental. As babies we deficate and urinate on ourselves and must be cleaned by our parents/guardians. We grow up slowly and make many mistakes due to ignorance and base nature. And things do not get that much better in adulthood - mostly they get worse. After the Flood God took pity on His creation because we are merely flesh. For someone to believe that the supreme being inhabited our form is indeed revolting to me, and it does make almost as little sense as for a god to inhabit a house plant.

[Macrobat]

Just a question here.

Cameron's documentary claims they have DNA evidence. Who's DNA? Obtained from where? Gee, they tested the other ossuaries found in the tomb and found that the deceased were all related to each other? The shock!

Or, did they get God Almighty to give them a mouth swab?

There are two things found in pastures, and this isn't the one eating the grass - if you know what I mean.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, in response to your rock question I was saying that God making a rock too heavy for Him to lift would be illogical and abusrd because it would be contrary to His established attributes. Just as assuming a human form and being killed would be illogical and absurd because it would be contrary to His established attributes. It's not that it would be too hard for Him, it's that it makes absolutely no sense.

I can understand why the rock question would be absurd, but not the latter.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, being one eternal God is a necessary component of monotheistic belief in a supreme being. A monotheistic supreme being must be eternal to be supreme, for if a supreme being had an expiration date it would not be supreme. A supreme being also must be greater than all of its creations.

Only his 'human' part would have an expiry. The fact that he would not cease if the body does would indeed make him 'greater' than the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't have a disdainful view of human beings. I simply know that while we are marvelous products of our creator and that even in this state we are capable of remarkable things, including soaring to great spiritual heights, we nonetheless are merely flesh with a portion of His spirit animating us. We hunger, thirst and feel pain throughout our lives - both physial and mental. As babies we deficate and urinate on ourselves and must be cleaned by our parents/guardians. We grow up slowly and make many mistakes due to ignorance and base nature. And things do not get that much better in adulthood - mostly they get worse. After the Flood God took pity on his creation because we are merely flesh. For someone to believe that the supreme being inhabited our form is indeed revolting to me, and it does make almost as little sense as for a god to inhabit a house plant.

Well, at least we agree on the last part. (You do realize I was referring to the burning bush, right?)

I hear you saying it doesn't make sense, but I'm not getting why. He's lowering himself to being a human, but I'm not grasping why this is a bad thing. Because it implies he would go through all the attributes you described above?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I can understand why the rock question would be absurd, but not the latter.

Interesting. I thought convincing you of the rock would be more difficult. I am making the same point about both claims, and if you can understand my point about the rock you can understand my point about becoming a human.

Only his 'human' part would have an expiry. The fact that he would not cease if the body does would indeed make him 'greater' than the rest of us.

Even if you wish to allege a human part died while a god part remained, that's still the death of a demigod. And if you wish to allege the human part died, then you have to decide whether the divine part remained as a personage separate from God "The Father." If you have a separate god the son, god the spirit and God The Father, you have numerically three gods with distinct wills and duties. Polytheism.

But perhaps you'd say the supposed divine personage of Jesus would have to return to God "The Father" from whence it came. If you buy that line of reasoning and reject the trinity, then that's almost monotheism; I don't see why it would be necessary to acknowledge anything other than one God. That does not solve the problem though, as such a belief that the supreme being would inhabit the body of a mortal would still violate God's omni* qualities. Was Jesus omni* anything? Obviously not; no one would contend that. But if Jesus were something lesser than God "the Father" on earth he would be unequal to God and therefore (if you reject Jesus as a second god) would be an incomplete incarnation of God on earth. And why would anyone look to an incomplete and transitory earth version when God says He is for all time the ONLY God, the only savior?

Besides that, you still haven't given any response to why God would violate His word in so many ways for a short earthly trip. Are you familiar with Malachi 3:6? "For I, the LORD, change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." One would have to believe the eternal God broke His promise and drastically changed, contrary to his attributes, if one is to believe Christian doctrine. I could continue with many other examples. Such as, to believe Christian doctrine one has to believe God violated His word when he told Moses that no mortal can see Him and live.

Well, at least we agree on the last part. (You do realize I was referring to the burning bush, right?)

Cute. No, I didn't catch that, and if that's what you're referring to, Dakar, you're wrong on that account too, for God did not inhabit a bush. First of all, the burning bush is referred to as a theophany, which is defined as a visible but not necessarily material manifestation of a deity to a person for a short period of time. Now the text states that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and when he noticed it, the voice of God emanated from the bush. In other words, God was not inhabiting the thorn bush; God did not take that form. An Angel of the Lord appeared as the flame of fire, and Moses heard only the voice of God coming from that source. Furthermore, the purpose of the bush was to get Moses' attention that he was dealing with a supernatural event; it had nothing to do with God's form, which no mortal can see and which is one of His attributes that does not change. God supposedly getting a woman pregnant with divine seed and inhabiting a human body is such an incredibly different thing that it's silly if you want to suggest otherwise.

I hear you saying it doesn't make sense, but I'm not getting why. He's lowering himself to being a human, but I'm not grasping why this is a bad thing. Because it implies he would go through all the attributes you described above?

The point about taking on all of those negative human attributes was what I was referring to as an idea of disgusting debasement. It's also disgusting debasement to claim that the sovereign of the universe could contain Himself (or a faximillie thereof) in a mortal body. (And I think that's one of the reasons the gospels have Jesus make a distinction between himself and "The Father.") In human terms, think of trying to stuff yourself into a lower life form like an ant while retaining the essential qualities of humanity, and then reflect on what you claim God would do. It's illogical and absurd to claim that God would violate His attributes by taking on a human form. It is illogical that God would violate His eternal word by breaking promise after promise made in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is illogical that God would warn us again and again and again, hundreds of times, not to worship any physical form, and then to take on a form that people would worship. It is illogical for God to tell us He is the only God, the only savior, and then to have born on earth a new personage never before revealed who violates His commandments and asks others to violate the most important ones by using him as an intercessor or demigod/child god/god in the flesh. It is illogical for God to demand good behavior from humanity as long as it exists and then to say, "well all is forgiven because I sent a piece of me to die." It is illogical to believe in such a "perfect sacrifice" for all time when no framework for anything of the sort exists in the Hebrew Scriptures. And even if you want to believe God wished to forgive us all for all eternity, it is absurd to believe the Christian doctrine when all that would be required from an omnipotent God would be a simple decree to the effect. Again, I could go on and on, but I think you've probably gotten the point by now. I am sorry to have again offended my Christian friends, but we are discussing the hotest topic and I am trying to do it in the most civil way I possibly can.

[RAILhead]

Wow, you missed the whole New Testament, huh?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Interesting. I thought convincing you of the rock would be more difficult. I am making the same point about both claims, and if you can understand my point about the rock you can understand my point about becoming a human.

The main difference is I find the rock absurd practice because I don't see what he'd gain from it. Having a human avatar on earth is an entirely different matter.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Even if you wish to allege a human part died while a god part remained, that's still the death of a demigod. And if you wish to allege the human part died, then you have to decide whether the divine part remained as a personage separate from God "The Father." If you have a separate god the son, god the spirit and God The Father, you have numerically three gods with distinct wills and duties. Polytheism.

I agree with you. This goes to root with some discussion I had a few years ago. The best explanation I got (about the holy trinity) was "Its a paradox."

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But perhaps you'd say the supposed divine personage of Jesus would have to return to God "The Father" from whence it came. If you buy that line of reasoning and reject the trinity, then that's almost monotheism; I don't see why it would be necessary to acknowledge anything other than one God. That does not solve the problem though, as such a belief that the supreme being would inhabit the body of a mortal would still violate God's omni* qualities. Was Jesus omni* anything? Obviously not; no one would contend that. But if Jesus were something lesser than God "the Father" on earth he would be unequal to God and therefore (if you reject Jesus as a second god) would be an incomplete incarnation of God on earth. And why would anyone look to an incomplete and transitory earth version when God says He is for all time the ONLY God, the only savior?

See below.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Besides that, you still haven't given any response to why God would violate His word in so many ways for a short earthly trip. Are you familiar with Malachi 3:6? "For I, the LORD, change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." One would have to believe the eternal God broke His promise and drastically changed, contrary to his attributes, if one is to believe Christian doctrine. I could continue with many other examples. Such as, to believe Christian doctrine one has to believe God violated His word when he told Moses that no mortal can see Him and live.

I find New Testament to be such a radical departure from the old that, if one were to accept such things, your point would not seem so... odd.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Cute. No, I didn't catch that, and if that's what you're referring to Dakar you're wrong on that account too, for God did not inhabit a bush. First of all, the burning bush is referred to as a theophany, which is defined as a visible but not necessarily material manifestation of a deity to a person for a short period of time. Now the text states that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and when he noticed it, the voice of God emanated from the bush. In other words, God was not inhabiting the thorn bush; God did not take that form. An Angel of the Lord appeared as the flame of fire, and Moses heard only the voice of God coming from that source. Furthermore, the purpose of the bush was to get Moses' attention that he was dealing with a supernatural event; it had nothing to do with God's form, which no mortal can see and which is one of His attributes that does not change. God supposedly getting a woman pregnant with divine seed and inhabiting a human body is such an incredibly different thing that it's silly if you want to suggest otherwise.

It's been a few years, I wouldn't trust I was that exactly informed. I see your point.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The point about taking on all of those negative human attributes was what I was referring to as an idea of disgusting debasement. It's also disgusting debasement to claim that the sovereign of the universe could contain Himself (or a faximillie thereof) in a mortal body. (And I think that's one of the reasons the gospels have Jesus make a distinction between himself and "The Father.") In human terms, think of trying to stuff yourself into a lower life form like an ant while retaining the essential qualities of humanity, and then reflect on what you claim God would do. It's illogical and absurd to claim that God would violate His attributes by taking on a human form. It is illogical that God would violate His eternal word by breaking promise after promise made in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is illogical that God would warn us again and again and again, hundreds of times, not to worship any physical form, and then to take on a form that people would worship. It is illogical for God to tell us He is the only God, the only savior, and then to have born on earth a new personage never before revealed who violates His commandments and asks others to violate the most important ones by using him as an intercessor or demigod/child god/god in the flesh. Again, I could go on and on, but I think you've probably gotten the point by now. I am sorry to have again offended my Christian friends, but we are discussing the hotest topic and I am trying to do it in the most civil way I possibly can.

Ok, now I get it. The debasement stems from violating claims he had previously made in scripture?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Wow, you missed the whole New Testament, huh?

Great argument, Railhead. I'm sure you were a formidable debater in high school.

Why don't you want to debate the substance, like Dakar is?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

The main difference is I find the rock absurd practice because I don't see what he'd gain from it. Having a human avatar on earth is an entirely different matter.

We both agree on the rock example then, but I don't see what Christians think He would gain from an earthly incarnation either, that he could not accomplish by decree. The only thing I could see it doing would be to nullify a host of eternal commandments (including some of the most important) and vows made by Him and to consequently cause a large segment of humanity to worship a paradoxical trinity that denies His indivisible unity.

I agree with you. This goes to root with some discussion I had a few years ago. The best explanation I got (about the holy trinity) was "Its a paradox."

I sincerely thank you for being civil in this debate and admitting to when you agree with me.

I find New Testament to be such a radical departure from the old that, if one were to accept such things, your point would not seem so... odd.

Okay, we're gaining ground. If you see the difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible as a radical departure, then you can see where I as a Jew am coming from. I as a Jew am commanded in the Torah only to worship in the mode of my ancestors who were physically present on Mount Sinai. I as a Jew am required to follow the commandments of the Torah to the best of my ability, to teach them to my children (that I do not yet have) and to regard the commandments as eternal and not subject to revision, as God says. I as a Jew regard the Hebrew Scriptures in general as THE definitive holy text God. For me, any religious claims are evaluated based on that standard.

On the other hand, I view the Christian Scriptures as a Greek/Roman document (conquering enemies of my people who had little understanding of my religion) that bears little resemblance to the Hebrew Scriptures. Based on the fact that Christianity includes the Hebrew Scriptures in its Bible, I have to assume that Christians believe the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures as compatible - yet they clearly are not. For most Christians their holy text is the basis upon which they view the Hebrew Scriptures. They attempt to insert Christalogical meanings into Hebrew verses that just aren't there, and when they come across verses that conflict outright with Christianity they often explain it away or resort to saying the so-called "New Testament" supercedes the Hebrew Scriptures, as Railhead did. I personally do not believe Christian doctrine to be tenable or philosophically consistent, even if one were to take it by itself, apart from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The point is, we both make our choice. I choose the Torah, the Prophets and their Writings - the documents of my forefathers. Christians are free to make their own choice, and I do not begrdudge them it. My father often taught that Christianity is one of the world's great religions and that Judaism teaches there are many paths to God. Christianity may be fine for Christians, but I want everyone here to know a bit about why Jews reject it, since we got on to the subject.

It's been a few years, I wouldn't trust I was that exactly informed. I see your point.

Thank you again.

Ok, now I get it. The debasement stems from violating claims he had previously made in scripture?

Yes, that's a big part of it, but I listed other factors that amount to debasement in my opinion. I thank you for considering my words with an open heart and mind.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We both agree on the rock example then, but I don't see what Christians think He would gain from an earthly incarnation either, that he could not accomplish by decree. The only thing I could see it doing would be to nullify eternal commandments and vows made by Him and causing a large segment of humanity to worship a paradoxical trinity that denies His indivisible unity.

Simple. By sending an earthly avatar to die for our sins (and making our entrance to heaven easier). [IIRC]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, we're gaining ground. If you see the difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible as a radical departure, then you can see where I as a Jew am coming from. I as a Jew am commanded in the Torah only to worship in the mode of my ancestors who were physically present on Mount Sinai. I as a Jew am required to follow the commandments of the Torah to the best of my ability, to teach them to my children (that I do not yet have) and to regard the commandments as eternal and not subject to revision, as God says. I as a Jew regard the Hebrew Scriptures in general as THE definitive holy text God. For me, any religious claims are evaluated based on that standard.

Oh yes, I understand where your pessimism/disbelief towards the NT takes root from. Mine is just further reaching.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

On the other hand, I view the Christian Scriptures as a Greek/Roman document (conquering enemies of my people who had little understanding of my religion) that bears little resemblance to the Hebrew Scriptures. Based on the fact that Christianity includes the Hebrew Scriptures in its Bible, I have to assume that Christians believe the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures as compatible - yet they clearly are not. For most Christians their holy text is the basis upon which they view the Hebrew Scriptures. They attempt to insert Christalogical meanings into Hebrew verses that just aren't there, and when they come across verses that conflict outright with Christianity they often explain it away or resort to saying the so-called "New Testament" supercedes the Hebrew Scriptures, as Railhead did. I personally do not believe Christian doctrine to be tenable or philosophically consistent, even if one were to take it by itself, apart from the Hebrew Scriptures.

You are beginning to far exceed my ability to keep up. Or my religious education.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The point is, we both make our choice. I choose the Torah, the Prophets and their Writings - the documents of my forefathers. Christians are free to make their own choice, and I do not begrdudge them it. My father often taught that Christianity is one of the world's great religions and that Judaism teaches there are many paths to God. Christianity may be fine for Christians, but I want everyone here to know a bit about why Jews reject it, since we got on to the subject.

And I am more than happy to listen. And try to understand as best I can.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I sincerely thank you for being civil in this debate and admitting to when you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you again.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I thank you for looking at my words with an open mind.

You beat me to the niceties, damn you.

No, I appreciate you accepting my questions as being sincere, and answering them in kind.

And in case it isn't clear, I'm agnostic. Hence why you haven't offended me.

[Big Mac]

Your last post is very kind, and i take your responses as high compliments. As you can see, I am a lover of comparative religion. I took a lot of Philosophy courses would have at least minored in it if I had had the extra time.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

And in case it isn't clear, I'm agnostic. Hence why you haven't offended me.

Oh, wow I really thought you were a Christian. Well, you were a good representative of Christianity anyway. It will be interesting to read undotwa's next contributions to the thread.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, wow I really thought you were a Christian.

I was raised Catholic, and religion courses in college made realize what I really believed (or didn't, as the case may be). I joined in because you pointed out some of inconsistencies I've questioned over the years, to give the answers I received (or conclusions I drew).

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Well, you were a good representative of Christianity anyway.

I highly doubt that. But I'll accept it until someone else jumps on my performance.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It will be interesting to read undotwa's next contributions to the thread.

Yep.

[undotwa]

Big Mac: You have written a lot of good stuff while I have been asleep (as I am in a different time zone) and with the limited time I have at the moment I will try to answer every question you have raised. You have written a lot of good stuff that needs a thorough reply. However, although I am more well versed in Christian theology than the average Christian, I am not a theologian by any standard. Also, while I may quote scripture from time to time, forgive me if I don't include the references because I don't really have them handy.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You may view it that way. But then why are Matthew, Mark and Luke referred to as the synoptic gospels? They are referred to that way because they are mostly the same textually, with relatively slight variations in some stories. The variations likely came with age, with the first gospel probably being Mark, which ends without any physical appearance of the supposedly resurrected deity. So you have Mark at one end and John, which is comparatively late material that differs much more widely with the synoptic gospels. What one seems to see is progressive embellishmment, rather than a cohesive tapestry of theological claims.

It is a very popular theory these days that the synoptic gospels have a common ancestor. It is a theory though to which I don't subscribe. If there was a 'q' gospel, I find it very strange that we have no mention of it from any of the Church fathers or indeed any archaeological evidence. It is simply a hypothesis. Also, while the three synoptic gospels share many things in common, the differences between them are just too numerous for them to be simply derivations of a common text. Amongst these three gospels, many parables and sayings are retold but in completely different ways. Also, certain aspects of Christ's life are covered in some gospels but are completely ignored by others. Let's not to mention the language. The quality of Greek between the synoptic gospels varies widely (so I've been told, I am not a Greek scholar!). Luke is said of the three to write the best Greek, while the phraseology of Matthew is much more Aramaic (suggesting that Matthew is in fact a translation of an Aramaic document now lost). These apparent discrepancies tend to suggest that the three gospels do in fact have different sources. I further contend that the vague sense of chronology in the gospels (all four gospels contradict each other in parts of the chronology) makes the gospels read like eye-witness accounts or at least the recording and compilation of eye-witness accounts. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that it is in fact the apparent contradictions in the gospels that actually make them more believable, because it proves that they were not simply contrived by a single person or merely a variations of a common gospel, but independent accounts on the life of Jesus.

I'm of the opinion that if these gospels do have a common source, there would be no discrepancy and the language would be the same. Anyway, why would the Church suppress the source and rely on documents that seem less accurate?

In any case, if several people are going to write a book on a man, it would be no accident if they didn't share common features. After all, (if you accept that Christ existed) he remains the same man no matter who writes about him and in the end he did the same stuff. The Gospel of John is of course more exegetical than the others and is much later. But just because it is written in a very different style compared to the other three, doesn't necessarily imply that the other three are phylogenetically linked.

I never made that claim.

I wasn't implying that you did! But I thought it was relevant to my argument.

Why would it have been necessary for him to conceal his identity? If, as according to Christianity, his purpose had been to suffer and die on earth as an eternal atonement for all of humanity's sins, of what purpose would it be to lengthen the process? Why not simply declare one's self divine and face the punishment to complete the mission? I don't see why things had to be hidden. And as I said, if Jesus is believed to have hidden things from people, that in my mind counts as deception; God does not lie.

I thought I had explained why Jesus (albeit briefly) did not simply come out after his baptism (when he began his public ministry) and say "I am God". While the primary purpose of Christ's life was the atonement of sins, he also had to form his disciples to establish the Church and also function as a moral teacher. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if I want to begin a religion I can't just go around claiming that I am God. I would be dismissed as a lunatic, hardly the reputation that gives one the standing to convert the world!

Christ never denies his divinity nor does he rebuke anyone who alleges that he is God. Thus I don't understand your allegation that Christ was deceiving anybody. At his crucifixion, the whole Jewish nation were aware of his claims to be God - it was for this he was crucified. Even now, we don't catechise people by saying "Jesus is God, believe!" (or at least shouldn't). The acquisition of faith is so often a gradual process and catechism reflects that. While the teachings of the faith are clearly available to everyone, we don't teach people everything in one go. In fact, to do so might actually do harm as people would be liable to misunderstand the teachings.

I am not a scholar of the Christian holy text, but again my question is, of what purpose would mere allusions and contradictory denials be? Christians base their faith chiefly on belief in a resurrection, correct? If so, what would it have profited Jesus to wait any length of time after figuring out the mission he was supposedly on?

OK, I've noticed in your style of argumentation that you are a very rationalistic sort of person - the sort of person who would question "Why did God make man if he knew he would rebel against him?" There is nothing wrong with this of course but it often can lead people down endless loops and in fact shields people from seeing the big picture. Your also in danger of getting me to spend endless time in typing explaining Christian dogma (which is by no means simple!)

Firstly, I'd reiterate that Christ never denies his divinity. As I had said before, all the gospels portray Christ in both human and divine ways. We see his humanity in his temptation by the devil, agony in the garden and death on the cross but at the same time we see his divinity through his miracles, resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is juxtaposed throughout the gospels. We thus say that Christ possesses two natures: human and divine (he is still the one divine person however... this I will talk a little bit later when answering your question on the trinity, which I cannot today). For us Christians, our teaching on the hypostatic union is not intended to give a fancy name to something that is completely irreconcilable, but an expression of a truth that is necessary for the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice to the Father

Your third question (on the resurrection) puzzles me a bit because I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Forgive if I sidetrack a little. Christian theologians often say that in fact Christ's sacrifice on cavalry was by no means necessary. The essential aspect of the sacrifice to the father was the divinity of Christ's humanity, which made it the most excellent offering. But Christ's divinity was such that the mere humiliation of God the Son being incarnated into human flesh would have been sufficient sacrifice. But Christ did more - he willingly was crucified upon the cross as a supreme testimony to himself. Everything about Christ is just so superfluous - because he loves us so much and gives us so much. "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 12:13). Christ died in the way he did because he wanted to show his love for us. He didn't have to die and he could have chosen not to die. Thus the way and time that Christ rose from the dead is of course directly linked to the way and time Christ wanted to die. It could have all been done in an instant (God is omnipotent), but the way Christ did it was so much more meaningful.

Another thing: the gospels were written well after the death of Christ (post factum). The people writing the gospels would have had a very clear understanding of what they wanted to write and the doctrine that they held. It would be absurd to say that all four evangelists were figuring out who Jesus was as they were writing the gospels. Why would someone write a book so to convince people to join a religion with such glaring inconsistencies? It doesn't make sense. If the evangelists felt that there was a contradiction, they wouldn't have written down the contradiction. Thus if they felt Christ wasn't God, they wouldn't have written down quotes suggesting that he is God.

Okay, you lost me there. He's not rebuking the man? What do you mean he was trying to get the man to understand the full implication of his words? Do you believe he was asking a rhetorical question, hinting to the man his true identity? I don't see that from the verse or its context.

If Christ was rebuking the man he would have said "I am not good". He wouldn't have left it at some vague answer "who is good but God alone?" And Christ did rebuke people, often quite viciously. The fact that there is no answer to the question lends one to believe that it is actually rhetorical. He is in effect saying "Do you realise by calling me good that you are calling me God?" The rich man obviously believed he was the Messiah but probably did not realise that Christ was God. If this was a rebuke, it would be more obviously so.

I know that is an article of faith for Christians, but to most of the non-Christian world it is absurd. God cannot be 100% one thing and 100% something else, for that adds up to 200%. For Christian belief to make sense numerically, one would have to contend that the godly/mortal split was something like 50-50. And anything that is less than God is not God, at least according to Judaism. In Judaism, God is a wholly supernatural force, immortal force.

And yet, how can something have two contradictory natures at one time? If such a being were entirely divine, as Christians claim, then there would be no suffering. If someone were entirely human, there would be total suffering. You cannot have both at the same time. At least, I don't recall the gospels claiming Jesus said anything like, "I am suffering now, but I'm not, all at the very same time because I am both human and god!"
...
I am not familar with the term hypostatic union. I do know about the trinity doctrine and the fact that many Christian theologians consider it a paradox. As respectfully I can state it, I consider Christian belief in a fully god and fully mortal being to be irrational and irreconcilable. I know that my religion teaches that while there are esoteric spiritual truths beyond human comprehension, the essential truths humanity is held responsible for are fully within our power of comprehension and within our grasp. For a supreme power to hold humanity to account for a critical truth that could not be rationally comprehended or explained would be evil and cruel.

Both the hypostatic union of Christ's human and divine nature and the Trinity are considered mysteries. No Christian can claim that he can truly understand it, although there are some very lengthy theological treatises that do provide some insight. I don't want to actually go into the nitty gritty details of this, partly because I am not a theologian and therefore can't but also because by doing so one misses the point. These two core aspects of Christianity are articles of faith and it is a supreme act of intellectual humility to believe in them even though one cannot understand them. I wouldn't myself useful vocabulary like 'irrational' when describing the doctrines but rather words like 'beyond reason' (extrarational or superrational, are they words?) I must finish here and I will edit this post later with more.

As for the example of the rich man and the poor widow in the Temple, I am not familiar with that tale, although I can surmise the general content from what you have written. I will say that even the richest human being on earth suffers, even the richest human being may pray, and even the richest human being sins (since wealth and righteousness have nothing to do with one another), so only God can judge each human being's worship and repentance.

Then why do Christians see so much significance in him allegedly claiming to be the son of God? If we are all sons and daughters of God, that claim should be of no importance to Christians from the standpoint of divinity. However, if one were to take the text at its word and assume Jesus to be "the son of God" in a Christian sense, then Jesus would logically be a creation of God and consequently a lower or demigod. Such would be polytheism.

This I will speak about later.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by undotwa 

I'm of the opinion that if these gospels do have a common source, there would be no discrepancy and the language would be the same.

Are you familiar with the game "Chinese whispers"?

[undotwa]

Chinese whispers? How is that really evidence in support of the 'q' theory? The fact of the matter is that the 'q' gospel theory is an entirely modern invention that doesn't have any solid evidence behind it. Some areas of ancient history are so vague that we can make up any theory to explain these historical events but just because they seemingly fit a narrow guideline does not make it correct. At the end of the day, you need some form of evidence.

Chinese whispers doesn't explain why Luke has a particular fascination with the infancy narrative and women and why Matthew has a very strong Judaic flavour to it. These gospels were clearly compiled and written by different people and are sourced from different eye-witness accounts. Even the synoptic gospels are just too dissimilar for them to be from the same source. I do not however exclude the possibility that they have influenced each other.

[- - e r i k - -]

It was in response to your flawed argument above. I have no opinion either way on 'q' theory.

[undotwa]

Your entitled to think that my argument is flawed, but it would be courteous to point out what the flaws actually are in my argument, rather than simply saying that it is 'flawed'.

[- - e r i k - -]

That should be evident by my response. Information corruption.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That should be evident by my response. Information corruption.

If you want to engage me seriously on this topic you have to offer some more substantive explanations. Otherwise you are merely stating an opinion. Everyone in this world has an opinion. Only opinions that are reasoned deserve attention.

[Big Mac]

We saw the documentary last night, and I do find the case to be "compelling." I still find it strange that it took so long to read the names and connect the dots because the inscriptions are not written in paleo-Hebrew script - it's in standard block script that I read immediately after it was displayed. If you didn't get a chance to watch the show, I do recommend it.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I saw the show last night and my opinion is that I am skeptical of actual history and what is written in the bible. Same way I felt before. I just cannot believe that so many people would believe in something that was EDITED. Monks or whoever picked and chose what should be in the bible and to this day it obscures actual history.

The documentary made me happy in that it illuminated Jesus really existed and did a lot of good. Not so happy that actual history is a mystery.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear 

Monks or whoever picked and chose what should be in the bible and to this day it obscures actual history.

That would be the Roman Catholic church under Pope Damasus.