Is Jesus divine?

It was one revelation. But yes, pre existence would be correct. And seeing that I'm no different than anyone else, then everyone knows God but has forgotten him as had I. And so, contrary to the position that mankind invented God, our affinity for God is not without just cause. Yes there are contrivances, falsehoods, and misdirection's in the world. But the truth exists, and God does live. I don't remember the pre existence or eternity. I only recognized and remembered Gods spirit when it came and bared upon me, within my heart, mind, and soul. And he is truly divine. I however am certainly not, though I'm obliged to make efforts to better myself in every way I can. One way is by speaking truthfully.

The absurdity of what I say is due to the influence, impression, and pressure of the world in which we live. A fish in the oceans depths may survive quite well in that pressure. But when taken up, it perishes like an absurdity. This is why talk of a living God seems so incongruous to this life, a death invoking concept. But he has a way without causing our demise.

 

But the truth exists, and God does live. I don't remember the pre existence or eternity.

You don't remember it because it did not exist except in the minds of Mormons. Just another religion amongst many.
Jesus Christ was simply a Jewish preacher. Probably born in Bethlehem in Zebulon just 5 miles from Nazareth. The Nativity stories were cobbled together by Matthew and Luke to make people believe he was divine. Unfortunately for Matthew and Luke they contradict each other, and Matthew uses OT scripture that does not mention Jesus - Hosea 11:1. All in all the stories contradict the laws and customs of the time and the family - according to Matthew - go to Egypt to escape Herod for about 2 years, while Luke places them back in Nazareth in about 40 days (Jewish ritual completed) where they stay till Jesus is grown up.
By the way Jesus worshipped Jahweh who was a son of the god El. They chose Jahweh while in Exile as El appointed his son Jahweh to watch over Israel. The whole thing comes from the Ugarit pantheon and the Ugarits influenced Jewish thinking.

 

I don't know that God is real from reading doctrines. I know from his spirit. And I knew or believed nothing about God before hand as I had no religion.

 

Oh look, it's Trevor...still working tirelessly for his god.

 

Jesus was more than a rabbi, and he arose from the dead.. just as predicted in th eOT. Y'all like scientific proof until it conflicts with your notions. I've post it enough times, one of the most analyzed artifacts in human history, but you ignore it.

 

Who are you? What makes you who you are?

 

There are no prophecies in the OT. And certainly none about Jesus. It's all Christian doctrine. There's no scientific proof that Jesus rose from the dead. The only thing I acknowledge is that Jesus existed - but as a man - no more.

Matthew's and Luke's stories contradict each other. Luke has Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem. a 4 day journey for a 9 month pregnant young woman. 4 days with 4 nights camping on the roadside and all that entails. There were no hotels, cafes etc and Palestine was not the safest of places to be travelling. Even one of Jesus followers carried a sword. (Gethsemane). All that and neither Roman Law or Jewish custom required Mary to travel anywhere. Pregnant and weaning mothers were exempt from any travel - even to the important festivals in Jerusalem like Passover. Mary would have stayed at home. See Hannah's reaction to the birth of Samuel.
The census was on property, not people. Use your imagination for a moment. Luke tells us the census was worldwide. The Roman world was most of Europe, North Africa, Egypt, Asia Minor and the Eastern Mediterranean. With the 'facilities' the Romans had does anyone realistically believe Rome could keep track of millions of individuals.

David had 20 sons mentioned in the Bible. He had been dead (if he existed at all) 900 years. Given the large families that were needed in those days, and given that each Biblical generation was accounted as 30 years (the prime of life), that would mean a vast number (work it out for yourselves) would approach Bethlehem. And remember that the Jews had spread across the Middle East over the centuries meaning that Davidic Jews in North Africa, Europe and Egypt would have to travel hundreds of miles over many days, as would Jews of other families having to go to the home town of their parents. The idea is simply ridiculous. Tax on Property was the reason for the census. You only have to see that by the fuss the Jews kicked up over every census. It was costing them. Rome taxed them and Herod taxed them.
The idea of Joseph having property in Bethlehem is simply stupid. David had been dead 900 years. In that time civil wars had raged in Palestine. there had been 3 invasions, an exile and the chaos of the Hasmonean Kingdom where armies of 2 contenders (brothers) for the High Priesthood fought with each other. Then the Roman occupation. Beside all this Joseph lived in Nazareth. How could he maintain a property 90 miles (4 days journey) away. Even Pony Express wasn't yet invented.
Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 as the reason for Jesus going to Egypt. The reference doesn't mention Jesus. If you quote 'dual interpretation' that means Jesus must be included in the rest of the chapter or you make the Bible open to any interpretation. Matthew - having used Israels supposed escape from Egypt (Hosea 11)then tells us that Israel was never in Egypt. His genealogy of Joseph goes back to Moses and jumps to Jacobs grandson. Supposedly in Egypt 430+ years that means a gap of 300+ years. So how can we accept Joseph's ancestry back to Abraham. Even the Jews cannot cover much of that period though they stretch lifespans to try.
When Matthew mentions Bethlehem Ephratah is he actually referring to the place or the family Ephratah of Bethlehem found in the Bible. The Hebrew has 'the clan of Ephratah of Bethlehem' .
The easiest and safest place for Joseph and family would have been north, in Syria - just 20 miles from Nazareth. Ruled by another Roman leader Herod would not have dared to enter his territory. Rome had a tight rule that provinces did not interfere in other provinces. Something the King of Damascus found out when he harrased 'Herod' Antipas for a reason we won't go into. Rome sent an army and the King scuttled home. Not only that but Syria had battlions of Roman stationed there for quick use in case of trouble in the Middle East. Herod had a small army in comparison.
Matthew place the family in Egypt for about 2 years - give or take. And then they go home to Nazareth.
Luke tells us they went home after Jewish rituals were finished. Presentation of Jesus at the Temple and Mary's ritual cleansing. About 40 days. There they remain till Jesus grew up.

IMO Jesus was a Jewish preacher of Judaism. If you ignore a few interpolations by the Gospel writers, most of Jesus teaching was a milder form of Judaism than that which the hypocritical religious leaders taught but did not practise. Born in Bethlehem in Zebulon - just 5 miles from Nazareth - he grew up to seek to bring Israel back to Jahweh. His crucifixion was the result of opposing a jealous Sanhedrin. And although the crucifixion occured the events could not have been as described. But that's another story.

 

There is no scientific proof that Julius Caesar was killed - just a ton of historical evidence.

The Roman world at that time had an interest in Typology - the belief that repeated events in history were intentionally designed by the gods, or God in this instance. So Matthew is not relating to prophecy but rather pointing out certain repeated events from history.

No, not at all. Jesus taught something other than Judaism. In the Gospels, Jesus repeats almost none of the Old Testament.

 

It's a scientific fact that the blind can't see and the deaf can't hear. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to be seen or heard. In fact there is everything that is. And we are witnesses to it. But you can't convince them thru their eyes and ears.

 

That's a big question. Where is it going?

 

I am curious about your idea that “you” existed prior to being born by your mother. To really understand that, I think it’s important to know how you are defining yourself. What makes you “you”?

 

Jesus died and arose from death after three days. He was resurrected. At this late date in history, there is now scientific proof that the man in the shroud and the singular event that left the image, was Yeshua. Every prophecy in the Bible has come to fruition in its time. The Bible is a supernatural book. 60 books dictated to 44 authors in a seamless story. I feel sorry for you unbelievers, most of you have demonstrated your lack of understanding in almost every field in discussion.

 

I am an atheist Todd. If I have a god it is that of Reason not of blind belief like yours.

 

The Roman world at that time had an interest in Typology - the belief that repeated events in history were intentionally designed by the gods, or God in this instance. So Matthew is not relating to prophecy but rather pointing out certain repeated events from history.
↑So thats why he quotes an event that he later denies in his genealogy by missing out around 10 generations between Moses and Judahs grandson - always supposing Israel was in Egypt for 430+ years. The genealogy has been questioned so many times with various ideas, what is one supposed to believe. It also does not explain why Luke has the family back in Nazareth in 40 or so days - to remain there until Jesus became an adult.
The story is simply made up to give Jesus a 'divine' origin.
And yes, Jesus teaching contained much of the OT as he spoke mainly to the Jews. Even the Sermon on the Mount beatitudes were mainly from the OT. He followed Jewish customs. The Jewish baptism was for repentance - despite what John is supposed to have said. Despite Matthews fantasy story of the temptation - at which he was not present - was an acknowledgement of the Jewish belief that everyone is tempted by Satan with gods permission. Satan was gods servant given the task of testing peoples faith. It is only in the NT - and probably through Matthews story - that Christianity made Satan gods enemy. The Book of Job is simply an argument as to why the righteous suffer. It is preceded by centuries by a Babylonian similar argument
Ludlul bēl nēmeqi

The Gospel writers simply interpolated their own words to make him their 'Messiah'. Unfortunately it didn't happen. Their Messiah was to be a human who flouted the rules and led them to victory. In Gethsemane when Jesus said that was not his way - they fled. They had to adjust their thinking later.
The crucifixion was simply because he had shown the Religious leaders up for what they were - hypocrites. And even the crucifixion story is hyped up. Neither Jesus nor Simon carried the cross. These were left in place for use. The right timber was not easily come by. And the cross symbolised by Christianity was one of 5 types used by the Romans. It wasn't until the 2nd century Christianity decided that this type - Crux Immisa - was used. And then the nails - if used instead of ropes - were through the wrists, not the hand which was not strong enough to carry the bodies weight. The idea of the crucifiers sharing the clothing of victims was nothing new. And crucifixion of types goes back centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Jewish preacher was certainly crucified - simply for defying the religious leaders

 

I'm not as important to me as is God. On one hand I'm the sum total of my life's experience. Behind that, I'm an eternal spiritual offspring of the eternal God who has given me life to gain experience and a physical body in preparation for eternity with a body which will come about in the resurrection. This is Gods purpose for everyone. We are all Sons and Daughters of the same living God.

 

So prior to your life’s experience you were not the sum total of your life’s experience since you had no life experience. What about the features of your physical form that make you, “you” ? None of those would have existed either, right? Your father’s DNA had not yet combined with your mama’s DNA so your eye colour, your gender, your skin colour etc. none of that existed either, right?

 

Yes, it would be reasonable that I had no mortal experience. And my body is the sum total of the DNA of all my forbears. Or I couldn't physically exist without them.

 

People like yourself have attacked and discredited the Gospels for 2000 years. Where has it gotten you? God has given you a choice.

 

So this “you” that existed prior to being born by your mother, its main feature would have been consciousness and not much more?

 

It's got us to a place where we can reject the indoctrination of the Church and see the real truth behind the gospels.

 

I only recognized and remembered Gods eternal spirit when he visited me in my living room. And for a moment, the spirit was so strong and intense that it was as if I had been transported or unaware of my surroundings. Beyond that is speculation. I have read since then a scripture about the Sons of God shouting for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. I suppose it's very possible those Sons of God in the scripture might have included you, me, or anyone who has ever lived. At any rate, the scripture suggests a pre-existence and presence of more than only God. And my revelation is indicative of a foreknowledge of Gods spirit. Fwiw, I was not religious, had no religion, was born and raised in a non religious family, and was ignorant of Christianity. Actually I was pretty ignorant all around, and still am. But like anyone else I know a couple of things.

 

When you "see" the real truth behind the gospels you'll know where rejection gets you. To "see" the Truth, however, you must "deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow Him.

 

He would not know.
He never met Jesus. And wrote the story some 50-80 yrs after Jesus died.

So anything he would write would have to be made up.

...
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names of the "Four Evangelists" added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] According to the majority of scholars, Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources,[9][10] followed by Matthew and Luke, which both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called "the Q source", and additional material unique to each.[11] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

 

He in fact never claimed to be god.
At best, he claimed to be a son of god. As many in those belief worlds are.

Although, Jesus never recorded anything. So what he may have said or not said is not known.
Even the books describing Jesus were written decades after he died by people that never met the person.

So, nothing can be known except the writers had to use 2nd, 3rd, and more hand information.
We all know how memories fade after decades.

 

Oh lordy.

It's like attacking Trump. No matter the facts, some people will just double down and double down again on their fantasies. I don't even have to discredit the gospels. They do a good job all on their own.