quote:

'Was Jenos God.'

Wow. I had no idea. Congratulations.

I meant that you are God. I just reread it and it sounded like I was calling you an idiot. And then I couldn't edit my post.

Now it makes no sense at all. I'm a failure...

Well you are. Forget this Jesus fellow...

I have to be honest, I'm pretty fucked up right now because I haven't slept in days, and when I saw this thread title I swear it said 'Was Jenos God.'

And then I smiled and realized I'm just an idiot.

Now I get it. That makes sense. But indeed, every religion has responsibilities. It's generally only the afterlife that has perks, and the Muslim version of heaven is just as good, if not better, as the Christian heaven, depending on what interpretation you use.

Also, it's a matter of debate whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead. For all we know, he really did just die. Chances are I would have followed Muhammad because he actually transformed a constantly bickering tribal society into a nation that controlled a great deal of Northern Africa and the Middle East at their peak. Jesus gave people some good ideas, and certainly some hope, but then he got himself crucified by the Romans. Of course, Christianity isn't the only religion where martyrdom plays a big role.

Clarification: froggy was referring to your post about being Muslim, I think. Bascially, he contrasts the 'gift' of faith from Christianity against 'being forced' to pray five times a day in Islam, saying that people would prefer the Christians 'gift' to the Muslim 'duty'. This does of course gloss over the point that Chrisitans also have duties.

Also froggy, you make Christianity seem very mercantile. You suggest that the only reason to follow Christianity is to gain eternal life. I, as a Taoist, find this slightly bizzare. Who would want eternal life? Why is it better to follow someone who died and rose? Is it not better to just die, and pass on, decompose, return to your essential elements or whatever rather than live in a similar fashion in a place where time has no meaning?

And in response to your second point, good men can lie. It is possible to lie and be a good man.

Wouldn't that be inconvienient though, having to refer to yourself as 'being God' everytime you wanted to say "I am tired", "I am hungry" etc. Can you read Greek, froggy?

Hey could have simply been crazy, or, since it's doubtful you'd ever accept that, intent on freeing the Jews from the Romans. You see, if Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God, he could appear to fulfill the prophecies and lead an uprising against the Romans. This isn't that unfeasible, considering that the same situation has been recorded as happening many times. Perhaps the best recorded instance is that of Simon bar Kokhba, who led the Jews against the Romans in the Second Jewish-Roman War. Now, most of the Messiah claimants didn't say they were God, but perhaps Jesus felt that the Jews would be more willing to listen to and follow him if they thought he was God or the son of God.

Now, none of this has been proven, but it is a rather plausible explanation.

Also, I don't really understand your question. What's different between taking a gift and doing something every day? Is it something difficult that I would do every day? I'm confused as to what you're trying to compare.

if you say Jesus was a good man, but not God, you are also calling Him a liar, because He claimed to be God over 50 times, every time He said I AM refers to being God in the greek text.

ok, look at it this way, if one person tells you that you can take a gift, & the other says that you must do something everyday, which would you do?
if you saw two people, one dies, & rises again the other dies. which would you follow?

According to the Qu'ran, I would be sinning if I was a Christian because I have heard about Islam and thus I must convert or suffer in hell. Who am I to believe if neither side has sufficient proof?

was Jesus God? YES!!! he was fully man, fully God! 100%, !00% that is why you8 can ask him to forgive you! you are free from sin! and yes, you have sinned. everyone has! if you haven't you are now by believing in something else other than the Christ! the Lion and the Lamb

That argument would be all well and good, but it would only leave room for a non-interfering indifferent God that exists outside of the universe, and not the more conventional God.

Don't you think, being humans, and not God, that a lot of things about God would be hard for us to understand?

Jesus was an unemployed sandal wearing liberal hippy with long hair who went around talking about peace and love. And wore really shabby robes.

God is a hypothetical all powerful force with lots of contradictions surrounding it's appearence but according to most religions has a fairly bad temper.

I see no connection between the two.

Er...I didn't read all of that because it was long and I'm tired...but it seems it was partially directed to one of my posts so...

Jesus was a man. Human man. Wise and cool and kind and righteous and still the Messiah in mine eyes but...a man. Not God. He didn't become better than a human until he died to save our sins and then was resurrected, etc. And he isn't physically God. They are "one" in that they want to spread God's message among other things but they are not one as in physically one.

quote:

Reply

I don't think anyone who affirms the deity of Jesus (such as myself) would argue whether or not Jesus was God. Wouldn't they argue whether or not he IS God? Being as Deity is everlasting and un-changing, if Jesus WAS God, he never stops BEING God. So the proper question is 'Is Jesus God?' Why do I make the small point? Because it comes down to assumption. You ask that question coming from the assumption that Jesus isn't deity. Therefore he's not eternal. Throughout Christian History, it was assumed the other way around. We have assumed that Christ IS diety, and therefore the burden of proof lies upon those who want to change tradition.

Persoanlly, I loved the Da Vinci Code. It was a great thriller. But it's history is way off base. For instance:

"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon - the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."
"I don't follow. His divinity?"
"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."
"Not the Son of God?"
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."

The Council of Nicea produced the Nicene Creed in A.D. 323. So let's look at Christian authors who wrote before A.D. 323.

Irenaues: He was born in or around Proconsular Asia, in the first half of the second century. The precise date is debated, with some saying between the years 115 and 125, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. Either way, He pre-dates the Council of Nicea. Speaking of John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.), He says, 'All distinctions between the Father and His Son vanish, for the one God made all things through his Word.'

Ignatius: He was the Bishop of Antioch. In A.D. 110, he writes a few letters to the church in Rome. He says, '...Son of Mary and Son of God... God Incarnate...Christ God...There is one God who manifests Himself through Jesus Christ His Son.'

There are many more. Origen, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all call Jesus the 'Son of God'. These are major men in the church of their day, who represented the mainstream of Chritianity during their lives. I will refrain from quoting the Bible itself, as it's credibility is called into question. But if anyone would like, I can provide substantial proof of the Bible's accuracy. We see that Christians before 325 believed jesus was the Son of God.

Now, I'd like to address the utter confusion regarding Jesus' 'I am' statement and the 'The Father is Greater than I' vs. 'I and my Father are one' debate.

You've been yapped at enough about 'Father' and 'Son' and it still doesn't make sense to you. Well get ready for it one more time. It's the foundation of not only the apparent problem, but the resolution. Jesus is both God and man. He is a God-man. Fully God and fully man, not fifty-fifty. I cannot prove that. I can prove that this is what Christians have always believed. I can prove the accuracy of the Bible, thereby inferring accuracy into those statements. But I cannot go back in time or up to Heaven and examine Jesus for myself. This is a matter of faith. I am tell you what I believe. We have now stepped outside of the world of testable, repeatable science. Being as we are in the realm of faith, I'll use the Bible. Christ asserts that His Father is greater than he is in John 14:23 and he states that He and His Father are one in John 10:30. How can He be one with His Father, and yet be lower? Simply. The Father never became a man. The Son did. As Deity, Jesus is one with the Father, ie, they are both equally divine. But Jesus is lower in His humanity, as evidenced by Hebrews 2:9 'But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death..' Jesus became a man, and as a mortal man, he had the ability to die, whereas the Father does not. So in that respect, the Father is greater than Jesus. The Father is the Father. Jesus is the Son. Jesus will do whatever his Father tells Him to do. Let's say that I really wanted to go to a U2 concert. My Father then tells me to go to the U2 concert playing in town. I go, obeying my Father. But that doesn't mean he is more powerful than me, it means that our will were in perfect harmony. So it is with the Father and Christ. The Father sent Jesus, Jesus came willingly, emptied himself of all His rights and privliges as Deity, and died for the sins of the world. Simple really.

Jesus does indeed claim to Jehovah (or Yahweh, depending on your persuasion). 'I am' was indeed a sacred title of the Lord in the Old Testament. By applying this title, Jesus claimed to be the God of the Jews. Now, In Isaiah, the God of the Old Testament is identified as the Father. Therefore Jesus is claiming to be the Father? No. He is claiming to be begotten of the Father. In the Jewish religion, if a father wasn't around to represent himself, his eldest son could be sent in his stead and was treated exactly as the father would be, right down to being referred to by the same titles. So it is with Jesus. the Father never became a man, but His Son did, and therefore represented everything his Father did, right down to the titles. So in this sense also are Jesus and the Father equal, but the Father greater.

Speaking the truth in love,
Chris

Hmmm...I missed the coming of walrus...I guess I'm lucky, he's quite sickening. And idiotic.

Rightyo.
In order for a higher power to go about creating the universe, we couldn't possibly be dealing with something tangible. God would have to be some sort of nonmaterial force, and thus wouldn't be biological. Because thought is a biological function, God could not be self-aware, and therefore it would never occur to It to impregnate anyone (It would be devoid of the necessary sperm anyway) or send himself down to earth in the form of a human (which probably wouldn't be possible anyway, though of course we are unaware of the nature of this God-force). Nor would this God be capable of speech. Because of this, even if God exists, Jesus had nothing to do with It.

Man, walrus, when will you learn...

No

For the love of Moses, I wish people would read the whole freaking thread before they respond.

Dan Brown researched his facts. The excerpt I posted from The Da Vinci Code is some of the facts that he included. None of it was made up. It's history. Therefore, it really did happen and is true.

So I am claiming that parts of The Da Vinci Code are fact - particularly the part that I posted since that was all I was referring to.

quote:

So the truth is the work of the devil?

Are you claiming the DaVinci Code to be a work of non-fiction let a lone the Truth? Because your seriously misled if that is what you believe.