The essential conflict in Christian Religions

[Albert]

Jesus as human versus Jesus as a Deity


Maybe its just me and my new embracing of my own ignorance but sometimes reading the Gospels I get the feeling that I’m in the middle of an unresolved argument. Was Jesus a man who through special insight became God’s chosen son or was he a manifestation of God all along? Consider a few Gospel inconsistencies:

Some of the Gospels take pains to show how Jesus was descended from the house of David making him a true heir to the kingdom of Israel while others make Joseph out to be a poor man. If Joseph was just the stepfather, what is the point of the genealogy lesson?

Some Gospels take pains to point out that John The Baptist and Jesus were cousins, yet in some versions of the Baptism of Jesus John does not know him until he sees a manifestation of the Holy Spirit settle on him.

Now before you get the idea that I’m trying to pick a fight with Christians of one faith tradition or the other, please be assured that I’m not.

It just seems to me that how you perceive Jesus has a lot to do with how you perceive his teachings. If Jesus were a man who got the God thing nailed, aced the test and got promoted to the right hand seat, it would seem that that holds out hope for the rest of us. If it turned out he was the professor’s kid and had all the answers supplied in advance then that’s an entirely different thing.

So fellow Christian’s what’s your take?

[Senor Herberto]

jesus was a human who had an exceptional relationship with god. the [catholic] church warped and pressurized his teachings.

i still love jesus and his message of love. i can't possibly love the church in that way.

[cpwill]

:shrug: Jesus was both fully man and fully God at the same time.

senor herberto; how, then, do you explain a man with an exceptional relationship with God claiming to Be God?

[Albert]

But Jesus is not consistently quoted in this regard.

[Larani]

Albert452004 I indeed believe Jesus was indeed a man (if you pricked him did he not bleed) now as to divinity I believe God is God an essence or spirit available to all of us the difference between Jesus and the average man was simply his willingness to share himself with God to allow himself to be possessed by God if you will and to allow God to use him for his will. Which to many of us would seemed to be against Jesus’ will, but this too is a strange thing about wills because clearly Jesus did indeed desire or willed God inside himself and what I mean by that is that Jesus had a 24/7 desire to have God present within himself guiding all his actions even the very words he spoke, thus did he speak or did God speak I honestly believe God spoke but threw him a willing son, and thus when it is claimed that when Jesus was crucified God was crucified this would indeed be true.

Now granted God cannot die, but he can experience death threw us as we know it. It really comes down to the question who and what are we? And what is are soul? Does our soul mean we are separate and apart from God or does it mean we our nothing more then a vessel with free will to be fill with either positive (Holy) or Negative (Unholy) spirit, and depending upon our choices will our actions be thus.

Now some will say that atheists or agnostics don't believe in the above but I disagree for no matter what anyone believes they have witnessed both positive and negative forces in their own life and within the choices and actions of others, and to me that is indeed what God provides the wisdom to know the difference for while the Holy Spirit will reveal the unholy spirit being the opposite will conceal this wisdom.

[Rivet]

Most Christian religions believe Jesus is the son of God. There is no conflict there.

Differences are mainly in practice. How you are saved for example.

[Larani]

Most Christian religions believe Jesus is the son of God. There is no conflict there.

Differences are mainly in practice. How you are saved for example.

True Rivet but what I find lacking in most religions is what does it mean to be a Son or if needed a Daughter of God? Since God is clearly Holy Spirit (energy) that manifests in the material world (matter) then sexuality would be irrelevant to this spirit. As the creator of all things it would be both Father and Mother, Son and Daughter would it not? In fact would not these labels just exists only for our own understanding in all things.

I will be honest I have never understood Christians who on one hand classifiy Jesus as God's creation or his Son and then disavowel their own self their own creation as something different and wanting.

[Redratio1]

Perhaps it is like wave-particle duality of matter in physics. Until it is measured a particle exists only as a probablility wave.

[cpwill]

the Trinity is, possibly, impossible to completely understand.

however, that being said, however, there are verses which deal with Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity.

Some of the Gospels take pains to show how Jesus was descended from the house of David making him a true heir to the kingdom of Israel while others make Joseph out to be a poor man. If Joseph was just the stepfather, what is the point of the genealogy lesson?

Mary, mother of Jesus, was also a descendent of David; however, the geneaology was to show the basic roots from which Jesus sprung; the netzorean (literally: shoot) community.

Some Gospels take pains to point out that John The Baptist and Jesus were cousins, yet in some versions of the Baptism of Jesus John does not know him until he sees a manifestation of the Holy Spirit settle on him.

they lived apart, in different towns where travel was a rarity; no Gospel denies the relationship; there's nothing contradicting.

It just seems to me that how you perceive Jesus has a lot to do with how you perceive his teachings. If Jesus were a man who got the God thing nailed, aced the test and got promoted to the right hand seat, it would seem that that holds out hope for the rest of us. If it turned out he was the professor’s kid and had all the answers supplied in advance then that’s an entirely different thing.

and if it was both? :)

[JoeR]

I find the question of his divinty to be the most unimportant thing about Jesus. The message is much more important, simple, and indeed perhaps a bit naive, as it may be.

[cpwill]

Jesus IS the message; as such, his divinity (and, thus, authority, as well as keyhood) is the key part of his message.

[Cedars]

Jesus as human versus Jesus as a Deity
Maybe its just me and my new embracing of my own ignorance but sometimes reading the Gospels I get the feeling that I’m in the middle of an unresolved argument. Was Jesus a man who through special insight became God’s chosen son or was he a manifestation of God all along? Consider a few Gospel inconsistencies:

Some of the Gospels take pains to show how Jesus was descended from the house of David making him a true heir to the kingdom of Israel while others make Joseph out to be a poor man. If Joseph was just the stepfather, what is the point of the genealogy lesson?

Some Gospels take pains to point out that John The Baptist and Jesus were cousins, yet in some versions of the Baptism of Jesus John does not know him until he sees a manifestation of the Holy Spirit settle on him.

Now before you get the idea that I’m trying to pick a fight with Christians of one faith tradition or the other, please be assured that I’m not.

It just seems to me that how you perceive Jesus has a lot to do with how you perceive his teachings. If Jesus were a man who got the God thing nailed, aced the test and got promoted to the right hand seat, it would seem that that holds out hope for the rest of us. If it turned out he was the professor’s kid and had all the answers supplied in advance then that’s an entirely different thing.

So fellow Christian’s what’s your take?

Jesus is God incarnate. God is spirit with no corporeal body, but through Jesus Christ God became man. This is the beauty of Christianity, that God so loved the world he became one of us – and he came to save us. God knew He would do this; it has been His plan from the beginning of creation. It has been referred to in the O.T. many times that he would send a messiah. The Jews believed the messiah would be a political leader who would conquer lands; they did not realize the messiah would be a humble man whose intention was to save our souls and to conquer evil (not lands or worldly things). The O.T. referred to the messiah as the Son of David (which the Hebrews knew meant a descendant of David). The N.T. is merely pointing out that Jesus IS the son of David through his earthly father, Joseph. In Jewish custom, the son of step-father is the same as the “natural” son. Remember also, Jesus was not born of man; but he was born of the seed of a woman (Genesis 3:15). Mary is also a descendant of David.

I believe the passage you are referring to regarding John not knowing Jesus until he sees a dove (the Holy Spirit) alight on Jesus is more to the point that John did not know the MESSIAH until the appointed time. I am not sure whether John and Jesus knew each other growing up (perhaps they did); the gospels are silent on their childhood. However, I believe the lesson to be learned here is that John did not know the identity of the MESSIAH until the appointed time.

The apostles taught that Jesus is God incarnate. God created the world and everything in it by simply His Word (see Genesis 1). And Jesus IS the creating Word of God who made the world, and John the Baptist is the witness to give testimony to the Light – i.e, Jesus the Christ – so that all men might believe through him. Consider John 1:1-15 --

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. 9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. 13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.

[Cedars]

True Rivet but what I find lacking in most religions is what does it mean to be a Son or if needed a Daughter of God? Since God is clearly Holy Spirit (energy) that manifests in the material world (matter) then sexuality would be irrelevant to this spirit. As the creator of all things it would be both Father and Mother, Son and Daughter would it not? In fact would not these labels just exists only for our own understanding in all things.

I will be honest I have never understood Christians who on one hand classifiy Jesus as God's creation or his Son and then disavowel their own self their own creation as something different and wanting.
In following the teachings of Christ -- that is, Christianity -- we are all sons and daughters of God. We were all created to be good but have free will to choose other than God. The purpose of teaching Adam and Eve as the First Couple from whom all mankind is created is to show that we are all of one family. God wanted us all to love one another, not kill as the brothers Cain and Abel did, nor even to lie or blame others as Adam and Eve did (each blamed someone else for their own sin -- Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent; they did not take responsibility and confess their sin to God). God did not create sexuality for mankind's abuse but created it as a fulfillment for a man and woman's covenant to each other. Just as a man and/or wife can break the covenant with each other, so man has many times broken his covenant with God. The example of a man and woman's broken covenant to each other is a perfect example of how often mankind has broken his covenant with God. Yet God continues to pursue us and has intended to do so from the beginning of time.

[Cedars]

jesus was a human who had an exceptional relationship with god. the [catholic] church warped and pressurized his teachings.

i still love jesus and his message of love. i can't possibly love the church in that way.
In your opinion, how has the Catholic Church "warped and pressurized" the teachings of Jesus?

[cpwill]

But Jesus is not consistently quoted in this regard.

er, yeah he is:confused:

[MikeD4o7]

100% human 100% God. 200% logically impossible, but with God all things are possible because God is outside of logic, yet all on the physical earth lie within the realm of logic.

Perhaps Jesus' 100% humanity is what was actually here on the physical Earth and his 100% God was over on that other part... outside of nature, the universe, and logic itself... ie nowhere. Or better yet, nowhere and everywhere at the same time... stacked on a pile of triangular circles.

Personally I think the whole point of asserting impossibilities as true is just to get people to ooooh and ahhh at something.

[Cedars]

Belief in God is infinitely logical. Science itself relies on the order of nature – if there were no order in this world, science could not exist because it could not define what is “natural” and what is “anomaly.” Science cannot tell you WHY the universe was made. It cannot answer questions such as WHO made the matter and FOR WHAT were they made? Science is a useful tool or method invented by man in order to understand the world we live in. But man has other tools at his disposal besides science, such as theology and philosophy. Science and theology are each byproducts of intellect and reason. Both are inquiries using rational intellect; but each study different realms of our intellect. Science studies what is material or natural; theology studies what is spirit and supernatural. Just as science, a product of man's invention, seeks to know the material world around it; our mind, a product of God's creation, seeks to know God within it. Our intellect and mind, if not our eyes and ears, are able to grasp the idea of the Creator (the opposite of nothingness, Being, HE IS).

The Big Bang theory lacks a cause for the creation of the materials necessary to create the Big Bang. That is not a fault in science; it is merely outside the realm of science. It is not outside the realm of theology. Belief in God is more logical than non-belief in God for the reason that, logically speaking, the world as we know it had to start somewhere, and the whole systematic cycle of the earth and the food chain cannot just happen out of chance -- to believe otherwise is illogical, especially for honest scientists. Author Amy Wellborn explained there is proof of God around us if we’d only take notice:

“We can use our minds to discern evidence in the world around us that points to the existence of God. Like an artist, He’s left fingerprints on His creation, for anyone with an open mind to see. …When we’re confronted by an orderly pattern, we don’t walk by and say, ‘What a lovely coincidental arrangement’ of paint, words, bricks, whatever. The orderly arrangement clearly indicates an arranger. To put it in classical terms: There’s no design without a designer. It just doesn’t happen. Ever. Now think about the world around you—orderly seasons, an animal kingdom that unerringly follows instinct generation after generation, a human body of intricate and precise workings, and laws of physics that keep it all from flying right on out into space. Can anyone who’s being intellectually honest really and truly say this came about by chance? …If a camera couldn’t happen by chance, how could an eye? Have you ever seen someone throw paint up in the air and watch it come down on the canvas in a realistic landscape? If you blindly dumped random amounts of flour, baking powder, sugar, and chocolate in a bowl and let it sit in the sun, would you end up with brownies? Quite simply, in reality, does order EVER emerge from chance? …[E]ven if the theoretical Big Bang really did happen, it obviously wasn’t an ordinary explosion. If a factory explodes, do the remnants emerge from the blast artfully and symmetrically arranged, with laws of motion governing their relation to one another? No. Little Bangs result in inert piles of randomly scattered shards of metal and glass. If the Big Bang occurred, it was a unique kind of explosion. Dare we say it was – designed – to result in order in ways that no other explosions do? …”

[cpwill]

Personally I think the whole point of asserting impossibilities as true is just to get people to ooooh and ahhh at something.

no, it's just all that makes sense.