Jesus-Neither Literal Son of God nor God

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Dondi

You statements ring true, inhumility. That fairly represents what the CR board is all about, although I respect the opinion of athiests/agnostics if their disbelief is genuine and well thought out. You cannot make someone believe in God when such is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively prove. My hope in this forum concerns those who are dormant in their beliefs will be enlightened to possibilities and areas to be explored in search of the truth, whatever that may be. Moreover that their lives will be enhanced because of a renewed hope in the things unseen.

Hi!
Thank you Dondi
I also respect the atheists,if it is their confimed belief.God has given choice to man,as per the scheme of things of life,to believe or not to believe that cannot be denied to man by man.Thanks again.

[inhumility]

Hi!
I thank every body who has contributed his view point in the above thread , now it is one’s own prerogative to change ones’ mind/faith in face of all these arguments presented or maintains one’s view as one held before, no compulsion; one has the right to have whatever faith one wants myth or fact.
I would however have to reflect that so far little has been written on the scientific basis of parenthood of Jesus’ birth or otherwise (the main thrust of the thread ) i.e., the chromosomes DNA-RNA factor as pointed in the original post. There might be many scientists especially in the field of genetics or acquaintances / friends of the members. If possible they could shed more light on the issue purely y on the scientific aspect of the issue, leaving aside for the time being the aspect of the so called spiritual or the metaphysical aspect.
We should presently firmly establish for ourselves analyzing the scientific aspect and then, there seems to be no harm, in having a firm/confirmed/reaffirmed faith and be confident to declare that SCIENTIFICALLY at least “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God”.
We should take sides unequivocally and with certainty. This is essential to be done by the faithful as faith increased with every layer of certainty and gets demolished when in DOUBTS. One is sort of blind-folded if one maintains faith in doubts. Blind faith cannot sustain against the tornado of doubts; it is only CERTAINTY which would withstand. Blind faith cannot live on the CROSS of doubts, but CERTAINTY would certainly live and would not die on CROSS as Jesus did not die on cross, it was certainty of his faith & his character that did not waiver and which yet survived at the hands of the then Jewish clergy/theologians . Against all the odds his faith together with his self had survived. Though badly injured, he went into a coma, the thread of his life but hanged between life and death, yet he was truthful in his BODY and SOUL – so he survived. His words were true- he must have been informed by God— and so he had himself hinted quite a number of times meaning thereby that he would survive and would not be killed by hands of Jews, and would go after the incident to spread his gospel among the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel . Why to love CROSS? - A symbol of torture to the truthful Jesus? Has anyone ever loved the sword which badly injured one and made one nearing death position? Or has any body ever loved the bow or the arrow that pierces through his body?
No! Never!
Let the CROSS be broken or hated rather than to love it. Why should we make crosses? Do we intend to nail down Jesus on the cross again? No need to be in doubt that for the last 2000 years we had been blindly believing that Jesus died on cross. It is only a myth blown out of proportion like a child’s balloon, enough to be blown! It requires a small prick of a pin to puncture it, and lo it collapses.

Jesus himself prophesized that (1) the adulterous generation of Jews of that time would be shown the sign of Jonah. Jesus prophesized that (2) a prophet is not respected in his own town/peoples meaning that he would sometime go to the far off lands to spread the gospel and in those far off lands people would listen to him and would accept him in large numbers and he would be highly respected there.
(3) He prayed to God, most fervently he prayed, he implored and beseeched God that he should be spared from the cup of death, even the hard stones would get melted with the agony with which he prayed, such was his imploring ,read the paragraphs of the incident of crucifixion again- with moans and pains he prayed to the Lord. Was he a condemned person? Would his prayers have been lost in the void? No, never, he was a pious man and a perfect man. The prayers of such perfect men are always approved by the kind God. His prayers were certainly accepted, heard and he survived.
(4)Who spoke on the cross the words,” Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”? Among other things this showed that Jesus was not willing to get crucified. Was he then coerced to death- on cross by God, All-kind God? What a kindness and what a justice!!!? What his enemies could not dot to him, don’t do that to him. Don’t side with his enemies. As he survived, let Jesus’ faith – the true Christianity- (the soul of faith) survive.
Enough for the time being .Body language of Jesus as also his words and prayers speak voluminously, for sure that he did not want to be crucified/killed helplessly on cross.
LET JESUS BE SURVIVED AS HE WISHED- NO DEATH ON CROSS-bY HANDS OF THE JEWS.

inhumility
e-mailaarsurrey@yahoo.com

[China Cat Sunflower]

I remain unconvinced one way or the other as to whether or not Jesus was even an actual historical person. I've read a lot about it but I still honestly just don't know. I am a follower of the philosophy of Christ. His historicity and manner of death aren't vitally important to me. I consider myself an honorary member of all religions and a world citizen.

Chris

[Thomas]

We should presently firmly establish for ourselves analyzing the scientific aspect and then, there seems to be no harm, in having a firm/confirmed/reaffirmed faith and be confident to declare that SCIENTIFICALLY at least “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God”.

Steady ... dangerous ground ... you are asking us to affirm, confirm and reaffirm that “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God” on the SCIENTIFIC basis that lack of evidence is proof positive that something cannot be the case.

I think you will find that no scientist will accept that as a proof.

And as for the rest of your post, it would read better if the scientific evidence was there to support your hypothesis.

Thomas

[taijasi]

All evidence that I have studied tells me ... that

A) Yes, there was an actual historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to at least 72BC, if not longer (there are good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular whre there is no priesthood or church agenda to maintain the status quo).

and

B) Jesus of Nazareth remains unquestionably, the least understood figure in recent history.

Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" were in fact two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30 was "the Christ"). So between them, which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...

If Jesus after age 30 was essentially - "the Christ," then we can at least gloss over the fact, to some, or notion, to others, that there was a distinction ... though the issue is an important one. Son of God? What would it take, for a reasonable person ... to face this issue from an unbiased viewpoint, and consider evidence that every human being is in fact, a Son of God? Relativism? Is that what we're left with?

Then hooray! Yes, I would welcome such a refreshing look ... at our human nature. Relatively speaking, we stand on a higher rung of the Ladder than a fish, or an ant. Yet to God the Father, I suspect we do seem largely - as ants. Think about that, next time you feel inclined to step on one, or squash a spider, kill a fly, smash a bee. As George Harrison said:

"It's easier to tell a lie than it is to tell the truth
It's easier to kill a fly than it is to turn it loose" -- See Yourself

The wise man can see, or in the very least knows, that the Divine dwells within every form of life. The skeptic will argue - that all is form, and thus, that there is no god. We do not all have to be mystics, to recognize intuitively that the mystic is aware of something that the materialist is not. Nor does it take a genius to figure out ... that there's something wrong with the picture - which we've all been taught in Sunday School. I knew that when I was in Sunday School.

What upsets some of the people around here (and elsewhere), is that they cannot quite understand that the error has often been one of omission rather than of commission. And when someone boldly steps up to suggest what might have been omitted (sometimes intentionally, which is actually the committing of a sin, while other times, an innocent enought mistake) ... we find that they are banned from the CR forums, or that they are hounded and taken to issue at every call. One learns quickly to choose one's words wisely, but then one finds ... that it is often not truth which (wo)men wish to hear, but what feels good, sounds good, and is familiar.

And yes, sometimes we can speak truth in such a way that is disturbing to few, yet more often, it is upsetting to several, to say the least. And sometimes it is anathema to those who are either committed to maintaining the status quo, for one reason or another ... or it is heresy, to those who cannot accept any viewpoint contrary to their own. Not in making peace, or finding common ground, are such souls interested, but only in holding their own. And thus, even if I say, let us meet on friendly territory, I am met with suspicion, fear, pre-judgement and consternation. After all, what if we are proven wrong (though that is not the point, or intent), or what if we find ourself to be in error? What then? What will happen to our house of cards? If the very foundation crumbles, then what is left?

Says theology, Hell! Or even worse, the fear of the unknown, and perhaps nothing frightens us more - than that! What, then, does it matter - what others - might happen to know, think, feel, or believe about Jesus of Nazareth, or the Buddha, or anyone else who has been so sorely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and martyred by this world? The consensus is already in. And we know how things really stand, now don't we?

Sol Invictus ... (now, and always)

The Apostate

[Thomas]

Whilst the scientific outlook seems to be the key to this discussion, I am obliged to ask:

Yes, there was an actual historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to at least 72BC, if not longer (there are good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular where there is no priesthood or church agenda to maintain the status quo).
Your evidence for this?

Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" were in fact two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30 was "the Christ"). So between them, which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...
Then please present your ample evidence.

Let me highlight a problem:
Irenaeus was writing in the 2nd century, and Irenaeus knew and was instructed by Polycarp, who knew and was instructed by the Apostle John.

if your dates are correct, then John never knew Jesus, and we can discount John's gospel as a fabrication, if not a fantasy. In like manner we can move on to discount the synoptic gospels, and therefore Acts, and the Apocalypse.

In fact, we discount the New Testament entirely.

The question then remains - what evidence is there of the Christ of whom you talk, and why do you believe in the idea of being 'Christed' and support your argument with quotations from a document which on the strength of your 'evidence' you must know to be wildly inaccurate, if not complete fiction?

The questiuon remains, if you propose such a radical re-evaluation of Christianity, please show us your evidence.

Thomas