Religion Discussion | Read the OP before posting
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I thought you were already struggling enough with sarcasm on here?
Read the Opening Post on this thread would you?
Jesus being the Son of God is talking about his spiritual birth, which is eternal, not created. The humanity of Jesus began in Bethlehem 2000 years ago.
In the letter to the Corinthian church, Paul explains that those in the flesh (humanity) are sons of Adam, and in him are condemned as a result of his disobedience.
Those who are in Christ are Sons of God, because they are saved and made righteous as a result of his obedience.
Therefore if Jesus is not the Son of God, but a son of Adam, he's just as doomed as everyone else, and the bible would make no sense at all.
In the letter to the Corinthian church, Paul explains that those in the flesh (humanity) are sons of Adam, and in him are condemned as a result of his disobedience.
Those who are in Christ are Sons of God, because they are saved and made righteous as a result of his obedience.
Therefore if Jesus is not the Son of God, but a son of Adam, he's just as doomed as everyone else, and the bible would make no sense at all.
Are these from the new testament or from what Jesus has revealed?
You know the Jews have The Torah and The Muslims have The Quran. The Jews also have the sayings of Moses and The Muslims have The Hadiths. So in a way what Mark, Mathew, Luke and John wrote would be equal to the Muslim Hadiths in that aspect.
But God must have sent a revelation to Jesus just like he did to Moses and Mohamed. Does It say without any doubt that he is the son of God worship me?
If you click on the link you'll see they are from both Testaments. Jesus doesn't say 'Worship me', he says 'Follow me, be like me'. In so many words. He does say to worship the Father - God.
How can we be sure he said any of this? The people that wrote about him did so 30 years after his alleged death, and that was at the very earliest.
You think that there weren't possibly any people around 30 years or more later that had heard him say it?
Possibly.
But I thinks it's a simply more likely that there wasn't enough people that heard/memorized everything that is attributed to him in that bible, verbatim. Let alone ones that lived that long to pass on all of these stories word for word to the anonymous authors of the Bible 30 years onwards.
Remember that the very earliest book was written 30 years post his alleged death, the rest were decades even beyond that.
I think there were possibly plenty of people who were still alive to repeat it first hand and at least second hand is hardly starting Chinese whispers. People focus on a mean average age of around 30-35 for that period while huge numbers of deaths in childbirth for both infants and mothers and deaths in infancy and older when stepping on pointy nails will have brought that average down immensely.
While most people were illiterate they were used to passing on news of events thousands of miles and decades distant, we're not talking about stories of Arabian Nights or Odysseus and the Sirens.
Edit. I'm no expert, I've also mentioned before my own doubt in some accuracy contained in the Bible but as a central message of Jesus' purpose and teachings wouldn't there have been enough literate people to have made notes that later were collated to some degree? Obviously I don't know, I doubt any can say for sure but we can allow some sensible deductions maybe.
Last edited:
What's worse is Islamic Hadith. Compiled 200 years after the end of the Quran.
Ironic that these kinds of books are called the gospels when you can take literally none of it as gospel.
And for that reason Hadiths have been and continue to be scrutinised beyond belief. No other religious text probably goes under this level of internal auditing. I'm not an expert in it but there is a very strong chain of authentication that traces each saying back to its utterer. I think no follower of any thesis will argue that Islam has the most robust monitoring system.
Conversely, of course, some Muslims choose to follow weaker Hadiths if it allows them to push their egotistical agenda. They may get large minority following but are often debunked by the ultimate majority.
John 20:28
Thomas said. "My Lord and My God"
Jesus did not correct him.
Jesus is God. There are other passages.
Yes, but Jesus didn't say "Worship me" but I could be wrong, not certain.
That's your interpretation but Jesus never said it. He's God's son but part of the Trinity, I was asked is there any doubt he said he is the son of God Worship me.
The concept behind that chain just doesn't make sense. Even the most "authentic" ones were compiled 200 years later.
The biggest mark of doubt however is this: Even if we assume the process and chain is authentic we have plenty of examples of two "strong" Hadith that totally conflict each other.
I'm not saying they are all definitely false but very, very shaky.
And I explained. He does not have to state the obvious.
Logic.
But to the question you were asked, I cannot remember Him telling anyone to worship Him.
Again, Yes, but Jesus did not actually SAY it. I'm answering someone else's question about what he actually spoke of. :sigh
I'm not and haven't been asked if he is part of the Trinity. Getting a bit boring.
right there.
Good of you to admit it. Have a pleasant evening.
Reading not yours, maybe English isn't your first language.
Nighty night :tumbleweed
No but you look like being one.
I so enjoy saying goodnight to you. Try practice a bit more reading before you turn the light out Sweetums.
to be serious.
You are not giving credit to the person who asked you the question.
If you asked him to read John 20:28 he would come to his own conclusion.
I'm certain Jesus did not tell anyone to Worship Him. So you are right there.
Perhaps a shame you weren't here earlier then but I'm glad I was correct in what I did say, I'm not one to quote Bible passages. If people want to search google they'll not ask here.
No. I did not see the original exchange.
People understand different things from reading Scripture.
Importantly I believe we cannot and should not 'impose'(not sure that is the right word) our understanding on to others.
The same passage can speak differently to each of us. The beauty of the scriptures.
For me Christ tells us not to judge. He speaks always of Forgiveness and treating others with Love. He is not telling anyone to worship Him. In fact he mostly refers to Himself as the Son of Man. But by saying the Son of Man has the Power to forgive Sin, He is saying he is the Messiah.
The heart of Jesus teaching is Mercy. With Mercy you are able to Forgive and therefore Love.
Now that is just my understanding.
Always been curious of the "wonder years" as i call it.
The time between age 12 through age 30 (not sure if the age is correct, i'm no expert). Nevertheless, there has been no concrete(i think) account of those years. Anybody would like to share some insight?
The time between age 12 through age 30 (not sure if the age is correct, i'm no expert). Nevertheless, there has been no concrete(i think) account of those years. Anybody would like to share some insight?
Have a gander at this reddit post title and article
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/d6ugah/tensions_rise_in_the_australian_outback_as/
Does the wording make you assume the race of the missionary? Would you automatically assume the missionary to be white?
For me personally there is no racial angle in the article nor the title but plenty are arguing that it does.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/d6ugah/tensions_rise_in_the_australian_outback_as/
Does the wording make you assume the race of the missionary? Would you automatically assume the missionary to be white?
For me personally there is no racial angle in the article nor the title but plenty are arguing that it does.
yes. Most would assume that I suppose.
The heading needs to be clearer.
or people just need to read the article.
How much more clearer? Should the title say non western Christian missionary?
always fun to see debates about the divine nature of Jesus, since it was this heresy that split the early church down the middle and kicked off the first council of Nicea to resolve it.
Aboriginal?
The history is interesting.
The missionary was a Tongan though, not an aboriginal.
Took a conference to agree what everyone believes today.
What evidence if any was presented where everyone came to the conclusion?
