Is Jesus divine?

Of course you would. But then god created Hitler to kill the Jews and Poles. Perhaps we were fighting against god - yet we won.

 

Nebuchadnezzar is not. He is also part of that prophecy. Also, there is the additional problem that the prophet admits to the prophesy failing, so he makes another prophesy which also fails.

They end up causing people to have unrealistic demands on the Bible and when they aren't satisfied, the people they taught either have to double down and believe something which they know is inconsistent, they reject the Bible completely, or accept the Bible for what is actually is.

The Bible's phrase from Timothy translated means inspired by God. That means they may be wrestling with God (Job Ecclesiastes). singing about God, (Psalms), writing about those inspired by God, making fun of those inspired by God(Jonah), performance art inspired by God (Ezekiel), etc. Unfortunately, most people define the Bible the way the Quran actually is.

Please start another thread if you want to discuss this. This is well outside the bounds of this thread.

 

Some time ago on here I gave my reasons why Jesus was not divine based on the Nativity stories and the way they went against the OT , laws and customs of the time. No-one bothered to consider the facts or discuss them.

 

I, in fact, did respond. See post 58. Your response failed to notify me because the quotes were done incorrectly.

I'll explain why no one likely responded to the post before that.

Where did this come from and why is it underlined and in bold?

You're talking to Mormons - this must have nothing to do with me.

The rest of the post just jumps all over the place. There's nothing coherent about it. The Nativity is literally just one sentence. It seems to stagger around the idea that the Bible is false - not that Jesus is not divine.

 

I must admit I am having trouble in using this quote method. It differs from other forums.

My apologies. I am having trouble with the quote/reply system on here. It's different to other forums I'm on.
Withoiut Lukes and Matthews nativity stories claiming he was divine - and they do - he would have just been a Jewish teacher of which there were many. And these are simply put together using misinterpreted scriptures and completely against the Laws/customs of the day.
The crucifixion story - and I don't deny the preacher was crucified - is also a mixture of 2 different stories and against the customs of the day. We don't even know when Jesus was crucified - on what day. Unless you know the year of his birth we don't know what day Passover was as it varies with the Jewish calender.
Without the Nativity stories and Crucifixion story Christianity would not exist.
Jesus did not have to quote the OT. His hearers already knew it. He used the OT often by naming several OT characters. Many of his parables were from the OT and about Israel's supposed relationship with Jahweh. He never spoke to the Gentiles unless approached. Thats why, when his disciples asked him why he spoke in parables he told them it was because they knew what they meant. And they had learned them at 'school' between the age of 5 and adulthood. He practised Judaism by being baptised - a Jewish ordinance for repentance. Matthews fanciful 'temptation' of Jesus was simply acknowledging what Jews believed, that they were tested by Jahwehs servant, Satan, for their faith. Of course, like other socalled reports, no-one was actually there. He attended synagogues and the Temple according to Moses laws, but rejected the petty regulations imposed by the hypocritical Pharisees.
The Gospel writers put words into his mouth that he would not have said. If he had preached his death as a vicarious sacrifice he would have been rejected by his listeners. If he had said he was the Son of God again he would have been rejected by the people They were all sons of god as told them in the OT.

My posts are not to destroy Christianity but to bring it into perspective and ask people to think and study the background, history etc. Knowing and believing what you are told gives a onesided perspective of anything. One can 'experience' what one likes but if it goes against commonsense or reality it is just an experience.

I would think of a 12 tribes site but how to start?

 

Right. He sacrified himself to himself to save us from himself. Makes perfect sense.

 

No, it doesn't. Anselm came up with that in the 12th century and it makes no sense like most of his arguments. Before that other atonement theories made far more sense and the one presented by Jesus in the Gospels make the most sense in my opinion.

 

I don't understand why Jesus, a Jew, would claim to save anyone by a sacrifice of himself. Jews believed they were responsible for their sins and atonement - Days of Awe and Yom Kippur. Their Messiah was a man to lead them to earthly victory. Even his disciples baulked at the idea. For me a vicarious sacrifice is a Gospel writers addition. And the fact of his crucifixion for 'offending' the Jewish hierarchy gives them the opportunity to 'explain' why he was crucified.

 

I have a question that is very pertinent to this thread. Given the fact we know of Jesus and his teachings through the written word, how is it that so many who claim to be Christian and hold to the philosophical Jesus, out right deny his miracles and even the virgin birth as well as His Resurrection? Why is it even important to hold on to the label Christian? Personally, I distrust the label. I prefer to say Believer or the Body or Bride of Christ. I always make an attempt to distinguish.

Grew up in a household that always had a Bible on the credenza in our living room. The only one that I ever knew that looked at it was me.....a small curious boy. I was told it was just a good story, yet somehow it was important to keep in the house. I think I know why.......it was important for me to have a small seed implanted. I still marvel why as the scripture says, "many will be Godlike in form, but they deny the Spirit thereof". To me that is prophetic. That is one proof of thousands that this is the Word of God. So why??

So I marvel at this thread and how so many like to keep the Bible on a shelf, identify as Christian and even admit Jesus to be a good teacher, yet deny the very precepts that are combined with His teachings. What, is there a book from witnesses that promote His teachings void of the miraculous? I think many that call themselves Christian do that themselves.

This is why I am coming to a end of the mental gymnastics concerning belief here. Either you do or you don't, and it is the Lord that reveals Himself to those He has chosen. Let that be a witness that of course is open to rejection.

 

Perhaps your proof that “this is the word of god” is not valid for others who feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ‘Also, your post indicates that you get a sense of validation from your beliefs. You seem to feel special because of your beliefs. Only you read the bike, only you and others you identify with are true Christians. I am also egotistical so I’m not trying to make you feel bad, I am just pointing out that your bias is very obvious.

 

My bias, of course is that I believe. I believe Clark Kent is a nice guy and stands for justice, but because the comics say he is invulnerable and can fly well.....I don't identify with him and don't spend ANY time debating. If others don't believe the Word of God.....why would they call themselves Christian? That was my point. Why do they spend anytime on the subject otherwise? I have a son who is 42 years old who still is engrossed in Superman. Even has a Superman tattoo.. I spend no time trying to discredit Clark Kent. The only reason I would spend time on Clark Kent is if I had an idea in the back of my mind that maybe he does the things the Comics say and I want to be convinced. The Word many deny says "without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to God".

If you reject my belief, that is fine and to be expected from many.

 

Believing in the Bible is similar to believing in Clark Kent. Much of it can be shown to be wrong or mythological and yet like your son and his love of Clark Kent you continue to believe and quote from it.

 

Had to think awhile about what you describe as "egotism". Guess we might all have that to a degree. However, when you believe, as I do, that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whoever (not just me) would "believe" on Him would not perish but have eternal life, and if I were to relish in the fact I have eternal life BUT keep it to myself, now that would be the most extremist egotism I could think of! (Sorry for a run on sentence). I do share my belief when invited.

What's that to you? I understand your position. I refuse to play mental ping pong with you because you don't recognize anything beyond time, space or matter. That's your playground. I go a bit farther.

 

Not far enough to actually study my comments on the Nativity story and deny them. I've never had a detailed reply to these from anyone showing I am wrong. I wonder why?

 

You remind me of the famous author Arthur Conan-Doyle. Because of his beliefs he accepted the pictures shown of fairies could be true - or an elaborate hoax. When presented with the evidence that it was a hoax, he accepted the evidence and admiited he was wrong. You continue your beliefs despite the evidence shown.
What is going on in the USA at the moment almost has me believing in the Book of Revelations that Satanic forces have returned.

 

So you're good with the concept that a young virgin can conceive without a man. But the particulars of her travels are contrived? Why would they invent the mundane when that isn't the point? Your rearrangement of facts to create something unbelievable is your own doing.

Forget snippets of ancient records compiled into a book. I have told you this day that I know by the visitation of Gods spirit, that he is real, that he lives and is divine. But you say I am parroting what I have heard and read, or that I must have a brain tumor or had an emotional breakdown from a lifetime of hearing bits and pieces of religious propaganda. Never mind that I was not raised in a religious home and never went to Church. Never mind I had no belief in God or knowledge of scripture or desire to find God. And never mind that I recognized and remembered Gods spirit when he came. No, in your estimation I am cognizant of nothing, there cannot be a God, and that is that. You will not hear the truth because you are dutybound to refute it. But to whom is your oath and duty? Do you think that what you think will determine what is to come. If so, that's some magical thinking. Regardless the consortium of the Gods of men's imaginations, throughout history other men have testified of the one true God. It can't be said to be prudent to hold them all in equal regard, anymore than jewels in a field of dirt, where treasure is the thing sought. Only the blind can make no distinction between one thing and the other. Then again, it is your life to make of what you will.

 

I know a great may that would take you to task. It's not worth my time. I prefer to study and learn of the nature of heaven. Not much interested in hell.

 

What on earth are you talking about. Are you saying Joseph was not a man about to fertilise Mary? I really don't think you have any idea. Luke tells us they lived in Nazareth. Matthew says they lived - or were in - Bethlehem. To agree the stories Luke makes Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem. Unfortunately not being Jewish he did not know that Mary was exempt from travelling under Jewish custom. And the Romans weren't interested in women anyway.

 

The truth is not worth finding? So be it.

 

You don't know know what they knew or didn't know. Neither do you know what was or wasn't in their hearts and minds. You place all that there to flesh out your own narrative.

 

Criticism Criticism Chriticism but no understanding. I don't need to know what was in their hearts or minds. I know what they wrote went against the background of the ancient times and Judaism. If you know that then the story is nonsense.

 

Your truth is already known.

The ancient Jews had plenty of time to deny the Exodus and tell the world it was a hoax. Instead they embraced it and learned from it. You fight a losing battle.

 

You really have little understanding do you.
Let me explain.
From the age of 5 until the age of 13 Jewish children were taught/indoctrinated be teachers/later called Rabbis with the Tanakh. So of course they believed. Like 2000 years of Christianity's indoctrination by the church of course they believed the Bible. It had taken nearly 2000 years before archeaology had been able to show that the story is wrong. No evidence exists whatever for Israel in Egypt. Now all but the most Orthodox or radical Jews accept that the story is an allegory. That's one reason 50% of Jews worldwide no longer practise their religion - or as one said with a smile 'we just take the holidays'.

Modern research and the ability to study is showing ordinary people that the Bible is not what they have been taught over 2000 years. No intelligent person believes that 'bodies rose from the grave and walked into Jerusalem'. Neither do they believe in miracles as recorded. Some bodies often have 'miraculous' powers of healing but that doesn't necessarily need a god to touch them.

It's is you fighting a losing battle. Try studying my nativity post against the time and conditions on which it was written. Tell me why the two stories contradict each other. Tell me how Jesus was in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. Tell mde why Matthew agrees that Israel was in Egypt and then denies it later in his genealogy of Joseph to Abraham.

 

There was a point where even the teachers would have said, "no, this didn't happen my grandparents were there." It was far to great a story to make up and have others swallow it.

and it could be said that "no intelligent person believes Jesus had the power to rise from the grave". Why do you keep selecting this previous miracle? You are a product of "The Age of Reason". That is where mankind attempts to replace God with himself. There should be no argument here. We should understand each other.

 

I desired to know the truth. But the concept scared me. I thought, what if there really is a God and he answers my prayer. I would then be on the hook for far more than a morsel. I mean this isn't about what movie is playing. It's about God. So what's the worse that can happen. I can either know the truth or remain in the dark. The odds bade me to go thru with asking the unknown and unseen God. So I sent up my prayer in the dark and nothing happened. I didn't know how it worked. Does it float up...is it carried...is there a process of recommendation before it reaches God...does it have to go past the stars...is distance a factor? Why the delay. Am I greater than God that I am ready and he is not. I said my part. So it was to me to wait and go about my life. And that I did.

My prayer was answered a few days later in the middle of the day. He sent his spirit to me. I know that God is real, that he lives and is divine. I know it was he because I recognized and remembered his spirit. God is holy and I am not. I realized that I had forgotten God. The whole world has forgotten him. How does one forget God?

People who say the biblical testimonies are a fable and there is no God simply don't know what they are talking about. Even when I knew of no God, I wouldn't be so bold as to say there is no God, and speak of things I did not know. But now that I do know, I say it...God lives, and the testimonies are true. I add mine to it, from the spirit of God himself, and not in vain repetition of what has already been spoken or written. I bring it from above for the cause of vigor. Thus it can't be said to be a continuance of a fable. My testimony is fresh from the spirit of heavens God. Like a bird I lodge in the branches of scripture, and find solace. It is my tree and lodge. I confirm its purpose. It is good and true.