Jesus is God OR God's Son?

[holierthanyou]

It doesn't make sense because it is a philosophical interpretation of scripture, not a scientific one. There's a book called "When Jesus Became God" and it goes into the history of the Trinity, how at the very beginning Christianity was nearly evenly divided between those who believed Jesus was God and those who believed he was the created son of God, and how the Holy Spirit made it in the mix is a bit of an interesting tale...

Anyway, staunch Trinitarians claim that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man. When you argue that one cannot be 100% two different species such as 100% cat and 100% dog they say "God can do anything".

But these are just WORDS. They are arguing semantics and this is because it is a religion, not a science. You can claim anything in a religion.

No one can explain the Trinity because it is the fruit of philosophers/theologians, and centuries of church fathers trying to harmonize a horde of seemingly contradictory scripture. I am appalled to see translators claiming that Jesus claimed to be the great "I AM" of the old testament when the NT words don't even match up with those of the Septuagint.

The lengths that some Christians have gone to in order to make this doctrine "apparent" in scripture are very sad and interesting at the same time.

Now that sound like a UPCI...

[Elle]

Even when I was hardcore into Christianity this never made sense to me and so I decided to not bother with trying to figure it out.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I've always seen it like this: Jesus became God's son by being born on earth. Before that, it was just God. They basically sent a part of Themselves to earth, and that part went into a body and was named Jesus. When Jesus' soul went back up to Heaven, He just became part of God again. It makes sense that Jesus was an autonomous being whilst on earth, because that part of God was in a human body. That's why you see Jesus pray at certain points in the Bible. He wasn't praying to Himself, but to the rest of God that wasn't in the body. It makes sense to me....

God forked off a new child process and then rejoined it? :D

[Guest Anonymous]

Next can you all explain to me how Jesus dying on the cross wiped out all of our sins?

[Lunatic]

I saw the same article and was confused too! I didn't have a religious upbringing and I'm an atheist so I completely didn't understand that. Not to make fun of anyone's beliefs but it all sounds very strange when you look at it analytically.

[Fluffy-Boo]

I've always seen it like this: Jesus became God's son by being born on earth. Before that, it was just God. They basically sent a part of Themselves to earth, and that part went into a body and was named Jesus. When Jesus' soul went back up to Heaven, He just became part of God again. It makes sense that Jesus was an autonomous being whilst on earth, because that part of God was in a human body. That's why you see Jesus pray at certain points in the Bible. He wasn't praying to Himself, but to the rest of God that wasn't in the body. It makes sense to me....

Right, I wish it could be that simple. Problem is, this isn't consistent with the rest of scripture.

For example:

The book of Revelation is written post Jesus' ascension. This is after he has died and is sitting at the right hand of the Father. And is the Son (Jesus) who is speaking in chapter 3 verses 11 and 12. Note carefully what he says:

I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God...

Well, that's interesting isn't it? He doesn't say, "in the temple of my Father" like he would say in other books of the NT and even other parts of Revelation, he says "my God" repeatedly throughout this paragraph.

Since when does God have a God?

You can go back to chapter one verses 5 and 6 and here you see:

...To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father...

Once more, God has a God?

There are numerous problems with the Trinity in scripture, but this isn't because a Non-trinitarian approach is more accurate, it's because neither are. We don't even know who wrote Revelation, but quite often the theology of many NT is books is inconsistent with the surrounding books and OT.

This is because, I'm not sure the writers of these books had really taken the time to consider precisely what was true.

Take a look at John 1:18 which literally translates into English as

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

This is the NASB, a literal translation. Doesn't sound very Trinitarian. It sounds Arian. Sounds like there is a second created God.

Well, we can't have that, can we? Take a look at how the NIV has to completely ignore the literal translation and make the word GOD into Son (which CANNOT be done in the Greek by any means).

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Yikes! That's embarrassing.

When you have to lie to keep a doctrine consistent throughout the Bible, you've already lost the war.

[doggie]

Shut up, doggie, you're being an ass.

no I won't this is what happened. it's silly to put nice words on it. Are you saying a young teen is ok having sex with a very old divine being? If it happened today god would be on trial for rape. He used Mary for his own needs.

[ZTwist]

From an article in Slate.com:

I'm only addressing my comments to this part of the original post ^ because I don't know what I think about the trinity.

Anyway, in another thread someone brought up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. It's a great argument against the above type of idiocy, and bears repeating:

( from the treaty, passed by Congress in 1797)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . "

So when someone starts spouting that kind of crap, just say, "Treaty of Tripoli, bitch!"

[Constance Vigilance]

I'm only addressing my comments to this part of the original post ^ because I don't know what I think about the trinity.

Anyway, in another thread someone brought up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. It's a great argument against the above type of idiocy, and bears repeating:

( from the treaty, passed by Congress in 1797)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . "

So when someone starts spouting that kind of crap, just say, "Treaty of Tripoli, bitch!"

:clap: I didn't know about that one. Don't think I won't be using it for ALL OF THE THINGS.

[debrand]

no I won't this is what happened. it's silly to put nice words on it. Are you saying a young teen is ok having sex with a very old divine being? If it happened today god would be on trial for rape. He used Mary for his own needs.

Well, technically she did sort of give consent. Although what else she could do, I don't know.

Christians also don't believe that their deity had sex with Mary because god is supposed to be a spirit without form.

[Constance Vigilance]

Yeah, from what I understand she was just magically pregnant after. But if you suggest this is in any way similar to magical things that happened in other myths/ religions people get very raging.

[Rachel333]

It really is confusing, and I'm not sure I understand it either. The "ice, liquid, vapor" explanation is technically a heresy called modalism. Rather than a three-in-one God, it's one God who wears three different hats. I think it's funny when Protestants get all upset at Mormons for being non-Trinitarians and then use the water example, because they're being just as heretical and non-Trinitarian.

I think a more orthodox description would be the hand one: there are fingers, a palm, and a thumb--all are different, but all three make up the hand. That's still not very good, though, because each member of the trinity IS God, not just is a part of God.

So basically I'm saying I don't get it either. The doctrine isn't even really in the Bible.

[doggie]

Well, technically she did sort of give consent. Although what else she could do, I don't know.

Christians also don't believe that their deity had sex with Mary because god is supposed to be a spirit without form.

Yes but so do 13 year olds to some sweet talking older man. It's just that it is ok to justify this if it is in the name of religion but these same people would kill if it happened to their daughter. We see this same thing wit hthe birth control issues and the abortion. if it is done in the same of god it is perfectly ok.

[debrand]

Yeah, from what I understand she was just magically pregnant after. But if you suggest this is in any way similar to magical things that happened in other myths/ religions people get very raging.

I was just thinking that her impregnation sounds very similar to Zeus raining a golden shower(giggle) down on one of his lovers. The difference is that Mary did give a sort of consent to her pregnancy.

Wasn't it Augustus Cesear who claimed that his mother dreamed a snake entered her proving that her son was connected to the Roman deities? Or maybe I have my Roman Emperors confused. Either way, Mary's impregnation by a god wouldn't have sounded as far fetched to the Romans as it does to us.

[Constance Vigilance]

Was it Zeus who came down in the form of a bull and raped someone?

[MissNomer]

So, I kind of understand the difference/relationship between Jesus and God, although it's a little confusing. But, what exactly is the Holy Spirit? This I have never understood.

[debrand]

Was it Zeus who came down in the form of a bull and raped someone?

He also raped someone in the guise of a swan. He was a horny bugger.

[PokaDot]

I'm only addressing my comments to this part of the original post ^ because I don't know what I think about the trinity.

Anyway, in another thread someone brought up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. It's a great argument against the above type of idiocy, and bears repeating:

( from the treaty, passed by Congress in 1797)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . "

So when someone starts spouting that kind of crap, just say, "Treaty of Tripoli, bitch!"

Oooo, I like that.

Anyways, I also wanted to point out that Allah and the Christian God are the same god.

A friend once said if you were to break down down Judaism, Christianity and Islam to utter oversimplification, it would go like this:

They all believe in the same god.

Judaism believes that the savior hasn't come yet.

Christians believe their savior is Jesus.

Islam, who actually do believe in Jesus (and even believe he was the Messiah), believe Mohammad was the last messenger of God.

.....so yeah. Islam, Judaism and Christianity have more in common with each other than say....Buddhism or Hinduism.

As for the trinity, I was taught that they are three separate entities, and that Jesus is the literal son of God. To me, that makes sense. But hey....I was raised LDS, so what do I know.

[debrand]

So, I kind of understand the difference/relationship between Jesus and God, although it's a little confusing. But, what exactly is the Holy Spirit? This I have never understood.

I never understood what the Holy Spirit was. It seems to be a being that nudges people to do good. You can also be 'filled with the Holy Spirit." which means that you get high off of god.(well, that is how Pentecostals seem to use the phrase)

[Constance Vigilance]

In Catholic land the Holy Spirit was kind of like that awkward relative you don't talk about much and are slightly embarrassed by. Even devout Catholics didn't really mention it much.

The only times I heard it was that the Holy Spirit is what fills you when you get Confirmed ('the gifts/fruits of the Holy Spirit'), and was what gave the apostles the ability to speak many languages on Pentecost. /indoctrination

[PokaDot]

He also raped someone in the guise of a swan. He was a horny bugger.

Didn't Zeus sleep with everyone but his wife?

[Esther]

Didn't Zeus sleep with everyone but his wife?

Nah, he slept with everyone INCLUDING his wife. Divine STDs, anyone?

[2xx1xy1JD]

no I won't this is what happened. it's silly to put nice words on it. Are you saying a young teen is ok having sex with a very old divine being? If it happened today god would be on trial for rape. He used Mary for his own needs.

It is a weird and problematic teaching, IMHO. What's wrong with pointing that out on a snark forum, which deals with religion and comes with a warning that less than delicate language may be used?

The teaching itself is that Mary was put in a position where people were likely to assume that she had committed adultery. The teaching is also that Jesus cried out to G-d to ask why he was forsaken. It would be an odd thing to say if he was really just talking to himself.

[kunoichi66]

Nah, he slept with everyone INCLUDING his wife. Divine STDs, anyone?

My favourite is when he impregnated someone in the form of golden rain.

Divine Semen, anyone?

[LilMissMetaphor]

It is a weird and problematic teaching, IMHO. What's wrong with pointing that out on a snark forum, which deals with religion and comes with a warning that less than delicate language may be used?

Who said anything about less than delicate language? His babbling doesn't address the question of how God and Jesus can be simultaneously one and separate. Which is not surprising, as doggie's modus operandi is to say whatever shit is in his head without bothering to make it coherent (or even punctuate it) first. Doggie should come with a warning.