He wasn't lying, He was still the true son of God.
Son of.. Sure, but not god himself. You'll also find that several times human beings in general are stated as sons of god also.. which again would merely imply that jesus was just a human like the rest of us. Of course this differs from the OT to the NT. In the old testament terminology, angels are called sons of god while men are called servants of god. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the servants and christians are the sons of God.
Even one of the roman caesar, Octavian, was given the title of "son of god". It's hardly worth the paper it's printed on.
And in John 1:12-it seems god was willing to have many 'offspring' as it were:
'Yet to all who received him, to those who who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of god - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of god.'
We could state that these people are also true sons and daughters of god, born of him just like jesus. That doesn't imply that they
are] god, but merely a true son of god. In the same instance jesus was born not of natural descent, or human decision but born of god. While this makes him a true son of god, it doesn't mean he
is god.
He wasn't lying. Though He suffered death, He was still the same person. He was still a part of God and God a part of Him.
As were others, born not of natural descent etc etc, but born of god. Those others would be the "made like his brothers in every way". They too were born of god, but you don't worship them as god. Nobody has a golden necklace of Moses hanging round his neck.
What christian people have done, is elevate jesus to a status that is quite frankly above and beyond what god himself can muster. It's not a surprise when we look at the history. Either way you cut it, god himself was god of the jews- jesus was merely a convenient "new god" for a "new belief".
It's probably somewhat similar to how the muslim world image jesus. They respect him as a prophet - but do not assign him an unwarranted status of god. When jesus states he isn't god, with comments such as; "why do you call me good, nobody is good except the father", christians will argue it until their very dying breath because they need him to be god. The old god of the jews just doesn't make the grade.
I can understand this in many respects.. When I get old and people cannot relate to me so much, and I'm a tad "out of the times", I'd have to pass on my business to my son who would undoubtedly look more appealing. That is what has happened basically. The original god, (YHWH), is dead and buried - while his son changed it from "worship me or die", to "worship me and you get eternal life".
After such a length of time of human progression, threat of death just could not compete with coaxing of rewards. I've seen hostages who are threatened unless they do something and they say "kill me", but when you tell someone to suck your balls and you'll give them £1 million, they'll be on their knees blowing you within a nanosecond.
He's not just a priest, a priest is your "job"
Missing part of the bible: 'And god said; "My name is god and I'm a priest".
Jesus was given the job of priest by god, and assuming that there's only one god - and god didnt tell himself he was going to make himself a priest to ensure people can come to him through himself- then it is pertinent to state that jesus is not and never was god, but a "mere" son of god which has been shared by others, as has the job of priest. So if Melchizedek etc have been priests, and god has now made himself a priest, does that mean originally Melchizedek had god's job? I suppose god couldn't afford the wages, so now has to do all the work himself.
Jesus still is who He is. He was with God at the beginning. "At the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God".
At the beginning doesn't imply he is god. Hebrews states that Melchizedek has no beginning and no end, which would show that he too was around back before there was anything except god, so is Melchizedek also god? Is it no longer a trinity but a quadrinity? No beginning and no end.. Isn't that the very essence of being god? Yet I do not see anyone worshipping Melchizedek, who surely outranks jesus simply because jesus was born, whereas Mechizedek has always been.
Some things are hard to understand, but we shouldn't use the teachers teaching as fire against him cause only he knows the full meaning.
But this is simply a "fast exit". I notice with christians whenever they stumble upon something that completely goes against their entire belief, that they piss it away as "only god/they/jesus/[insert random person here], knows the full meaning so let's ignore it". That is rude in my opinion. Of course whenever something looks like it can justify your beliefs you'll shout it from the rooftops. People cannot progress like this, ignoring whatever suits them.
It's like people shouting gods laws down my earhole, (thou shalt not kill etc), but completely ignoring any rule that they don't feel comfortable with such as the need to sacrifice cows, or to stone your child to death if he misbehaves.
As I have said many times before on this forum, it's a big game of pick and mix - and I find that perverse. You cannot say "you must do this, this and this because god said so", while completely ignoring everything else he said. It's preposterous.
Jesus said "why do you call me good? Only the father is good", and the religious masses dismiss it as easily as a fart in the breeze- in essence completely ignoring the words that jesus said because it doesn't sound good to them.
I guess that's how it always works though.. Ignore jesus when it suits you.
You seem to know alot about the Bible.
My wife said to me; "Elemis facial cream is the best you can get for removing wrinkles". I didn't turn round and say; "no, the beauty shop's facial cream is better" simply because I don't know anything about makeup.
If you want to debate something, it's entirely pointless unless you are well clued up on the subject matter. As such I have read the bible numerous times, and even find it interesting to an extent.
But people who really are interested in truth do not stop there. I went on and read the vedas, the koran, the enuma elish, and countless other ancient texts that talk of gods.
Here is the problem... the majority of religious people have not. They have read one book and accepted it as complete truth without having anything to compare it with. It's like creationists who attempt to refute evolution without actually studying evolution which makes their efforts completely null and void. Their arguments are like: "Well, things are too perfect to be anything other than creation", but they only view it that way because they have not studied the other side of the fence. It is pathetic at best.
If people would spend the time reading everything there is, they'd be in a position whereby they'd have to re-evaluate what they consider as truth.
I have seen nothing that is unique to the bible - but so much borrowed and stolen - from the ressurrection to the festivals you celebrate. Easter is from pagan origin, (Ostara), as is pentecost, (lugnasao), and christmas, (yule/sol invictus). Have you ever questioned why you have a christmas tree in your home? was jesus born with a nice looking christmas tree by him? Do you think jesus was even born in december? The realities concerning this matter is that the whole nativity has no place in december, and you are instead actually celebrating the birth of a sun god.
So you see, people really have no clue over what it is theyre actually believing in or celebrating - but instead just waffle along with the masses, afraid to question, afraid to seek, and afraid to learn.
One and a half thousand years before the story of Noah, we see it's origins in the epic of gilgamesh, in the enuma elish we see the origins of genesis, exodus, leviticus and numbers. And so on and so forth.
But this is how people are. You'd read one newspaper and state the war in iraq was bad- and then read a right wing paper and state the war was good. People have no ability to absorb everything concerning a subject and then gaining a much more educated understanding or belief- but instead read the very first thing they pick up, and consider it the be-all and end-all of the issue. How a person can assume he has the facts all done and dusted when in reality he can't even see 10 foot in front of him is ridiculous. It's a farce, a circus performance.
This shows that faith is needed
Faith simply means "lack of knowledge".
