Was Jesus God...

one_raven said:
...or simply a teacher and philosopher?

Presuming he existed, I see no reason to believe he was any more than a philosopher and teacher, not unlike the Buddha, Lao Tse, Confucius, Nietzsche or J. Krishnamurti.

I am not even going to bring the concept of the Trinity into this (not just yet anyway), I am just going to ask a presumably simple question.

Why do people think Jesus is God?

I have searched the New Testament for anything that Jesus said (searched dilligently, I believe) to make people think such, but can't find it.
I have asked quite a few people (believers and otherwise) to point out to me where he said he is God, in case I missed it, but with no luck so far.
I believe I have even asked it on this forum way back.

He does say he is the Son of God, just as he says we are all children of God.
In fact, it seems to me that he went out of his way to point out that he is no more special than any of us.
The only apparent exceptions between us and him is his goodness, which is attainable, and his knowledge, which was his goal to share.

One thing that a few people have pointed out as evidence that he is God is that he says he is the way or path to God, his father or heaven.
Not only does that blantanly say (as far as I can see) that he is not God, rather he is speaking of someone in the third person, but I see it as him saying that you can find your way to heaven via him, or his teachings.
When he says he is the way to Heaven, he is saying it as a teacher. "My words are your path to Heaven, where my father, God, sits."

Do you agree?
If not, please explain to me why you think Jesus IS God, rather than simply one of countless "children of God", albeit perhaps an exceptional one.
Please quote chapter and verse to me to back up what you say.
You can be of the opinion of anything (and I am not trying to discount that).
If you believe that Jesus was a faery, all power to you, and I will not tell you that you are wrong.
If you say, however, that Jesus was a faery and the Bible supports your assertion, I will expect you to back that up with chapter and verse.
What I am interested in (in this thread, at least) is where the Bible (more specifically Jesus' words) state that he is God.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Jesus cannot be God?

Mr Antony told that some of his friend say ‘ Jesus told that He submitted His soul to God’ . Based on this very statement some say that Jesus cannot be God.

Swami replied:

You are giving value to one statement of Jesus and you are not giving value to some other statement of the same Jesus. Jesus also told that He and His father are one and the same. This statement of Jesus is also equally valid . Every human incarnation is a two-in -one system. When you say ‘God in flesh’, the word flesh means a living human being and not mere inert human body. Krishna said in Gita that He enters the human body (Manusheem Tanum….). Here the word human body means the living human being and not mere inert human body. The word human body means the composite of three human bodies and such composite is called as a living human being. Therefore this means that the Lord enters the human being. The three human bodies in the composite are;

(1) The outermost inner gross body which is alive due to the awareness that pervades all over the gross body.

(2) The inner subtle body which is the bundle of qualities or feelings which are alive because these qualities are just the vibrations of pure awareness.

(3) The innermost causal body which is the core pure awareness.

The gross body is crucified. All the statements are given by the subtle body only through the mouth of the gross body. This subtle body stated that His body was not prepared for crucification. Here the body refers to the gross body which is different from the subtle body. At the end this subtle body stated that it is submitting its soul to God. The word soul refers to the causal body. This composite of three bodies stands as the meaning of the word Jesus. This composite is the meaning of the word ‘flesh’. This composite is called as the human being or jiva. Strictly speaking the word jiva means subtle body only. The soul is called as Atman. God entered Jesus and therefore God is in flesh. God is the fourth item and is called as ‘Supersoul’. It is this supersoul or God who said ‘I and My father are one and the same, ‘I am the truth’ etc. Therefore you should not confuse between the separate statements of subtle body and super soul.
Any ordinary human beings is just a composite of these three bodies without the super soul.

Otherwise there will be glaring contradiction between such statements. The aspect of human being is to stand as a practical example for all the human beings. The aspect of God is to explain practically the divine nature of God. Any human incarnation consists of these two aspects, which is a mixture of human being (Nara) and God (Narayana). If you take any sweet, it is prepared by mixing sugar and flour. But the item is called as sweet referring to the property of sugar only which is more important. Similarly any human incarnation is divine referring to the nature of God only, which is more important. An electric wire consists of electricity and non-electric wire. But it is called as current referring to the more important electricity only. You call the lamp as light which consists of flame and other materials like iron, sand, glass and cotton- piece with oil. It is called as light referring to the more important flame, neglecting other non-luminous materials. Therefore you call Jesus as God which really means the God is in Jesus. Similarly Hanuman is the incarnation of Lord Siva. As a human being he acted as a servant of Lord Rama. As Lord Siva, He jumped over the sea and killed several demons. Similarly Lord Rama learnt the spiritual knowledge from sage Vasista. This is the aspect of His human body. But as Lord Narayana a stone was converted into lady by the touch of His divine foot. Similarly Krishna is a driver of the chariot of Arjuna from the point of human being. As Lord Narayana He preached Gita to Arjuna and gave divine vision to him. The aspect of God is to teach about the God to the human beings. The aspect of the human being is to freely mix with the human beings and stand as an example for human beings.

Even the Prophet Mohammed is the Human Incarnation of the Lord. He did not reveal His divine aspect because it was not required in those circumstances. Thus you have to realize the program of the human incarnation according to the requirement suitable to the surroundings. If Lord Krishna, was born in West instead of Jesus, people might have been more spoiled. The people there were very cruel because nowhere in the world in the history the human incarnation of the Lord was killed in such a brutal way. That shows their cruel nature in that time. For such nature only love and kindness can bring realization. If Krishna were born there, they could have very easily grasped the negative qualities like stealing etc. without understanding their significance and the significance of the human incarnation. Therefore a suitable program was adopted by the Lord. You should not critizise Jesus joining such cruel people about incapability of self protection. Similarly you should not critizise Krishna, for stealing butter which was only to cut their bond with their hard earned wealth. Similarly attracting Gopikas by dance was only to cut their bonds with their husbands. Gopikas were sages in the previous birth and prayed the Lord for Salvation from the bonds. Hindus in India believe in previous birth and therefore they can digest this back ground. If this happened in the West, Christians do not believe in previous birth and therefore will certainly misinterpret this concepts. Therefore the divine program can be understood in the context of the back ground of a particular region only.

Therefore we have to understand the statements in the light of God as well as in the light of flesh accordingly, since both aspects are required for the devotees. The human aspect shows the path and the divine aspect shows the nature of the goal. Similarly the nature of the program of the human incarnation depends on the level of the psychology of the people living in a particular region in a particular time. With the help of such parameters only you can appreciate the total behaviour of the personality of the human incarnation.
 
Lord Insane said:
If Jesus was God , Jesus would have to be omniscient and omnipotent:

In Mark 5:25 a certain woman came behind Jesus and touched his garment, Jesus did not know and had to ask : Who touched my clothes ?
(not very omniscient)
Click to expand...
That is about as lame an excuse for a 'point' as i can recall. Do you think no one else has read the rest of the paragraph? The rest of your post is the same; one or two lines out of context and twisted to misrepresent.

Your name fits, son.
 
one_raven said:
You don't know a damned thing about me ...
Click to expand...
Ah! Direct hit I see. Always nice to have verification.
one_raven said:
As for the Trinity...
Click to expand...
The Trinity is taught through the Bible, beginning with "Let Us make man in Our Image..." It isn't called by that name, but the concept is very clear and obvious.

I see no point in a lesson here; the information is available and clear to any who wish to see. As is Jesus' continued existance as the Word, with God and is God. Those who look can see, those who don't want to see, don't.
 
Archie said:
Those who look can see, those who don't want to see, don't.
Click to expand...

Or, more precisely, those who look see what they want to see, the rest of us see nature.
 
answers said:
MW where the heck do you get this load from?
Click to expand...
Medicine Woman said:
From the new testament.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Answers, MW does have some correct information in what she said about the word "Lord". She also has some errors. For starters, she is using information from both Old and New Testament, not just the New.

When referring to God, the Almighty Creator and Sustainer, the Old Testament uses the word transliterated into English as "Jehovah". However, this was a sacred name, not to be said out loud lightly; so in text, it is usually read as "Lord". In the KJV and most others, it is printed in all caps – LORD – to signify the usage. It is considered the personal name of God and is never used to denote anything or anyone other than the Creator. (Except by modern revisionist ignorami who think blasphemy is 'cute'.)

Another Hebrew word is "Adonai", translated as "lord". It can refer to men of authority or to God.

Then there is the Hebrew "adown" or "adon"; which is a watered down form of "Adonai" it seems. Can refer to God, but usually a human superior. Can also be used as 'governor' or 'husband' or 'master'. Moses was so addressed, as was the king – David for instance.

The old Hebrew word which is usually transliterated as 'Ba'al' means 'lord' in the sense of an idol god.

In the New Testament, the Greek 'kurios' is translated as "lord". It can apply to a political ruler, the head of a house, a title of honor and respect. It was used to denote God; and also used to address the Messiah. Obviously, the term implies the Messiah is God.

Now, remember all that about the words having astrological significance? Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Someone or some party may have written such, but it's long after the fact – after the occurrences and events recorded.

And, answers: don't end a sentence with a preposition.
 
Archie:
“The Trinity is taught through the Bible, beginning with "Let Us make man in Our Image..." It isn't called by that name, but the concept is very clear and obvious.”

* Oh, boy. And all the many other instances when god speaks in the singular, he just forgot he was three-in-one eh? Why is he so indecisive?
 
answers,

answers said:
Isiah the Prophet speaking the words of God the Father Himself, said "And there will be a voice comming from the desert, prepare the way for God" The original language says prepare the way for Yahweh, John the Baptist was the voice in the desert preparing the way for who? Jesus! So Jesus is called GOD Yahweh. Pretty convincing if you believe the Bible, which is a whole other topic.
Click to expand...

I don't know if there is anything lost in the translation. I see it in the opposite way.

In "Prepare the way for God.", "the way" = "Jesus". Thus Jesus was a messager for God.
 
Theological Necessity forced Divinity upon Jesus.

You see, when Paul supposed that the Death of Jesus could be potent enough to deliver Eternal Life to his own generation and then to every subsequent generation, then it became imperitive that Jesus be made VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Theologians had no choice. If the Power of Jesus was to approach this Absolute, then it was necessary for Jesus to be deified.

Now, take away Paul, and one thereby takes away the Divinity of Jesus. If one supposes that Jesus was only murdered, and that the Crucifixion of Christ was not a Pivotal Cosmis Event -- transforming Sin and Murder into some morally unconditional Redemption, then we no longer have this huge Theological Problem.

And the Divinity of Christ IS a problem. The other Higher Religions can't help but to bulk at the supposed Divinity of Christ. if the Divinity of Christ raises up the status of Jesus, well, what does it do for the Actual God. God is belittled when a simple man can be made EQUAL to HIM/IT/HER.

But then we need to consider that in areas where Jesus may have actually struck upon Divinity, well, can we not suppose that many Saints have tread the same Ground, done the same Thing, had much the same experience.

The Catholic/Christian Churches have gone a great way toward encouraging a unique view of Christ, which may set him apart a bit too far from the Other Saints.

Paradoxically, though, while defying Christ, they had also effectively deified Paul for deifying Christ. You see, in order to believe in the Doctrine of Salvation.... that is to believe that Jesus was Divine, one must first believe in the Absolute Truth of he who at first claimed such an Impossibility, and that was Paul. So they created the Doctrine of Infallibility of the Published Scripture to effectively Deify Paul.

While we may argue whether Christ, with all of his Miracles was Divine, it seems surprising that we should give Paul even ordinary credibility, since not a single miracle had ever been attributed to him, and he was, as we know perfectly well, only a Money Grubbing Tent Preacher. Today they are a Dime a Dozen, and we take it for granted that they are all venial, greedy, hypocritical and corrupt, but because Paul was the first of that kind, we somehow grant him a dispensation from judging him exactly the same as the rest of his ilk. It all seems rather silly once one thinks about it.
 
The Trinity is taught through the Bible...
Click to expand...

You would argue that jesus is god. Not a god, but god. This undoubtedly fails without even going into much of a debate purely given but one of his statements:

Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father..”

This in itself gives a serious distinction between god and jesus. god knows something that jesus doesn't. The fact that one knows while one doesn't completely breaks apart any argument that they are indeed one and the same being. Simply put, they can't be.

jesus can be a god, but not god. He points this out frequently with statements such as "greater than I" and even with his begging at the time of his death.

The argument is of course that jesus is one third of god. He is still god - much like one of the three clover leaves is still technically a clover, but it does not work the minute one of those three knows something that the other does not. It shows beyond any credible argument that these beings have distinct differences and thus by definition are "different entities".

jesus can be smart, he can be powerful - but he is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or anything the theist world would attribute to god.

The only real argument that can be made is that jesus, (who is god), made himself into human form and that was god. In saying, once jesus was dead - god would be dead, if jesus doesn't know, god doesn't know etc. The very second you (the theist/bible) makes a clear distinction between the "two", you cannot argue that they are one. Yes, christianity is a polytheistic religion. The actual god has been forgotten, the priest is being worshipped.

"Hebrews 5:4
No one takes this honour upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.” And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.""

Let me rephrase that as it should appear:

"jesus took upon himself the honour of himself being a priest. He said to himself: "hey me, I'm a priest forever, so sayeth me".

None of this is apparent. The distinction between these "two" beings is evident and undeniable. These are not the same being by any understanding of the word "same". god has decided that jesus will be a priest forever - not a god, a priest - an intermediary between man and god - kinda like the pope. Now, needless to add as I have mentioned it before - jesus is not unique in this job, it has been done by others including melchizedek who is a truly eternal being, (never born/never dies). In fact, mel has one over on jesus as mel features in both the OT and NT. jesus does not.

melchizedek is named by name in both books. jesus - who you would claim is god, doesn't even get that honour. There is absolutely no mention of him until he is born to a human, (something melchizedek never went through), and then goes on to mention him as the firstborn of all creation, (something melchizedek outranks him on because melchizedek has always been).

One argument constantly used by theists, (used in this thread too), is that jesus says: "the father and I are one", and believe this to imply that jesus is saying that he and god are the same entity. This is wrong - and can be seen by looking at Matthew 10:7/9

"'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 'So they are no longer two, but one'."

By their arguments, the theist must now claim that a man and wife become a single entity when they get married. That they literally "become one". We all know that's simple idiocy and yet the theist tries his hardest to get others to swallow it.
 
one_raven said:
Why do people think Jesus is God?
Click to expand...
Same reason some Buddhists think the Buddha was a god; some saw what he did and what he taught as divinely-inspired, and some took it further.
Apparently, that minority who saw it as directly divine gained precedence and eventually became the majority.

If the man existed, which I think he did, he was just a philosopher. A thinker, a preacher, a teacher. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Hapsburg said:
Same reason some Buddhists think the Buddha was a god
Click to expand...

One of the greatest points of Buddhsim is that the Buddha is not a God, rather a person who achieved enlightenment, and was trying to teach others the path to enlightenment as well.
I've never met a Buddhist who thinks the Buddha was a God.
 
I have met a few that do.

It depends on the sect of Buddhism, and on the individual Buddhist.
Some, but by no means all, believe that he became a deity after death. In fact, that concept might have been where the early Christians got the idea of Jesus ascending to the heavens in an apotheosis.

Roman Judea was a mixing ground of various religions, ideas, and philosophies, due the large influx of traders and merchants from far-off lands. It's quite conceivable that such a form of Buddhism influenced Jesus' teachings, and may have influenced early Christianity. Although, it is impossible to know for certain.
 
Isn't it interesting that every word that Jesus was supposed to have said wasn't written down for over 100 years! Yet we are to believe that his "words" were remembered all those years and handed down through five generations before anything that he was supposed to have said was ever actually written! This is amazing to me, that a man with this type of persona could be so well known but never written about during his lifetime.

Where is his early childhood? Why don't we know more about what he did as he was growing up? We only are told of the "great" things that he did after he was over the age of 33 or so we are told. It just baffles me as to why anyone didn't follow him around to see and transcribe what he was doing seeing that he was causing so much of a stir. For such a great man not to be written about or just notes taken while he was alive seems ludicrous to me.
 
Hapsburg said:
Roman Judea was a mixing ground of various religions, ideas, and philosophies, due the large influx of traders and merchants from far-off lands. It's quite conceivable that such a form of Buddhism influenced Jesus' teachings, and may have influenced early Christianity. Although, it is impossible to know for certain.
Click to expand...

There is little doubt in my mind that the influence was there.
It is clear that the history supports that the possibility is there, and I think it is apparent in Jesus' teachings.
 
The problem I have with the whole idea that Jesus never existed, and rather was "made up" by the church is that the First Council wasn't held in Nicea until 325 CE. The New Testament booke pre-date that and the The Nag Hammadi Library predates it by up to 200 years.
Sure the church codified the stories, doctored a bit here and there, perhaps imbellished Jesus' story some and certainly eliminated some books. There is no doubt that the church "filled in the blanks" with their doctrine.
However, to say that he never existed, or we don't have his words because the church invented him, seems a bit absurd to me.
There were certainly people following him (whoever he was) before the Romans got involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top