Was Jesus man or the son of God? (Egyptian, myth, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, But I have a lot of ground to cover. If I buy a new car, the selection policy for the company management doesn't help me to decide.
".He was also only sent to the Jews not to the Gentiles..." This actually is of interest but it's just too much to go into here, and really needs a separate thread.
Excellent. The mission of Jesus - whether his actual one or the one attributed to him in the Gospels - is not helpfully relevant to the question of man or Son of God; as though you couldn't be both. As I say, the 'Son of God' really comes down to actually being a divine being in human form, or just a man, even if chosen or even formed by God. And the cut -off point is where Jesus stops being a meat puppet propelled about and used and then abandoned on the cross by the Shekinah, or God in spirit is always there right from the start, as in Luke, and pretty much IS Jesus with just a human shell around him to keep the spirit in one place, as per John.
This I see as a progression in time and thought, Mark being the earlier version (1), Mathew following the theology but adding a lot to improve the story and Luke following the Markan text but fiddling it to improve the theology.
I was puzzled by this idea of Jesus being sent to the Jews. Alt Thinker (in our "Q" debate thread) would have said this is because he was a Jew writing for Jews.
He demonstrably was not. He had a deep interest in scripture as stuff that Jesus fulfilled, but he reads Greek, not Hebrew and he has no understanding of or love for Judaism and its ways. So the reason I think he said (and I think Matthew is the only one to say it) that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel is to leave the mission to the gentiles for Paul.
Well, you can imagine someone asking a 2nd c Christian: "If Gentile Christianity was to be the right one and Jewish Christianity fail through hardness of hearts - and that because God hardened them to ensure they would not hear, understand, repent and be saved- why didn't he go to the gentiles right way?"
Because that job was reserved for Paul. It isn't a terribly good answer but it is really the only one they had. And that is how it gets into Matthew. But, as I say, it takes quite a lot of chat (which I didn't really intend, but, when I get started,you need to turn me off at the left temple with a heavy lead pipe - wrench ) and which you got here.
(1) closest to the synoptic original with no Nativity nor resurrection account (the women running away from the empty tomb is all there ever was, originally) but with some additions of his own. Someone helpfully pointed that out to me - Pilate wondering at Jesus being already dead and the hired servants in the boat at the calling (2) and the mix -up over the trip to Bethsaida which was the clue that Matthew and Luke were NOT based on Mark, but all three on an original text, and of course sharing with Matthew all the Decapolis material (called the great omission) which is not found in Luke, and which must be some other text similar to "Q" but which Luke never saw.
(2) Mark thinking to get over a few problems of Jesus having old Zebedee with ho help to go fishing and Jesus having died long before any crucified victim should.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-30-2015 at 06:02 AM..
From what I found when going through my own personal research, divinity was debated until 325 AD.
Quote:
The Council of Nicea, which took place in 325, was a response to a crisis that developed in the church over the teachings of a presbyter, or priest, of the church in Alexandria. And his teachings suggested that Jesus was not fully divine, that Jesus was certainly a supernatural figure of some sort, but was not God in the fullest sense. His opponents included a fellow who came to be bishop of Alexandria, Anthanasius, and the folk on that side of the divide insisted that Jesus was fully divine. The Council of Nicea was called to try to mediate that dispute, and the Council did come down on the side of the full divinity of Jesus. It all boils down to one iota of difference. And the debates in the 4th century about the status of Jesus have to do with the Greek word that exemplifies the problem. One party said that Jesus was homo usias with the father, that is of the same being or substance as the father. The other party, the Arian party, argued that Jesus was homoi usias with the father, inserting a single letter "i" into that word. So the difference between being the same and being similar to was the heart of the debate over Arianism. And the Council of Nicea resolved that the proper teaching was that Jesus was of the same being as the father.
While those who lost that debate mostly died out (or were killed), the remnants of the Arians can be seen in various Christian denominations and other religions, including the Latter Day Saints and us Unitarians.
While those who lost that debate mostly died out (or were killed), the remnants of the Arians can be seen in various Christian denominations and other religions, including the Latter Day Saints and us Unitarians.
I didn't know Unitarians had specifics.
I have read other sources that say that the bishop from Alexandria seemed to be winning the debate and the council was likely to declare that Christ was not divine until Constantine had the bishop exiled causing the delegates to reconsider their opinions. But searching now, I can only find that in blogs without adequate citations. So I am not positive.
I have read other sources that say that the bishop from Alexandria seemed to be winning the debate and the council was likely to declare that Christ was not divine until Constantine had the bishop exiled causing the delegates to reconsider their opinions. But searching now, I can only find that in blogs without adequate citations. So I am not positive.
Research a bit more and you'll find that the situation actually ping-ponged a bit between the two sides, the dictate of the Council of Nicaea reversed and then later restored.
Kind of a tangent, but I thought the second U (Universal) meant that all beliefs are accepted as long as there is enough common ground for peaceable assembly for fellowship, inspirational talks and outreach. My local UU is where the Buddhists have coffee with the Atheists...
Research a bit more and you'll find that the situation actually ping-ponged a bit between the two sides, the dictate of the Council of Nicaea reversed and then later restored.
Yes, but only be the Emperor Theodosius ordering that the Trinity be taught, removed any Bishop who disagreed before and after the "council" and had opposing documents destroyed. The 381 Council that finally established the Trinity as "Church Doctrine" was forced on believers by the Roman Emperor. All the Bishops there did was say yes sir.
Kind of a tangent, but I thought the second U (Universal) meant that all beliefs are accepted as long as there is enough common ground for peaceable assembly for fellowship, inspirational talks and outreach.
Unitarian - God is one. Universalist - Everyone is reconciled with God, not just a chosen elect, not just those who qualify on some conception of moral grounds.
This is the correct reference for the original meaning of the second 'U' in 'UU':
While UUs can be Buddhist or Atheist or any number of other things, to be UU means affirming and promoting a set of seven principles, which are pretty explicit afaic.
You'll note that even though they are very clearly religious principles comprehensively characterizing a distinct religion, they don't dictate a specific creed, nor impose any specific conception of the divine. That's why this one religion is able to have adherents who are also identified with other religious perspectives, at the same time, those other religious identifications perhaps defining the various individuals' chosen creeds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and which you got here.
