Is Jesus = God blasphemy, or the truth that he was trying to spread? Was he just a mortal missionary who had a tinge of essence of God, or was he God transplanted into a human who hung out with us for awhile? I'm getting both responses as true, but I thought Jesus' whole deal was that he wanted to share that there is ONE truth.

>>17841821 (OP)
John 11:25-26
>25Jesus said to her [Martha], “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Deuteronomy 30:19-20
>19I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, so that you and your descendants may live, 20and that you may love the LORD your God, obey Him, and hold fast to Him. For He is your life, and He will prolong your life in the land that the LORD swore to give to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
Psalm 36:9
>9For with You is the fountain of life;
>in Your light we see light.

Jesus can't be anymore obvious, I'm sorry to say, anon.

>>17841821 (OP)
If you don't believe Jesus Christ is God, do you not believe in the trinity? Is the Holy Spirit a myth too?

>>17841821 (OP)
If you understand Jesus as trying to convey certain advanced Hebraic truths (what else would he have been doing?) then this stuff is highly mystical and not literal.
It's just normal human nature to feel good about collectively elevating people or things to the level of the divine.

>>17841821 (OP)
>>17841851
>“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
>Mark 10:18 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus replied. "No one is good except God alone."
Literally just pick whether you want Jesus to be god or not and quote the appropriate passages to support your preferred interpretation while dismissing the others.

>>17841821 (OP)
Read ACIM and you'll know. Don't waste your time with those /his/ "Christians" that only remember God when they attend church on Sunday.

>>17841886
It is normal human nature, you're right. But we haven't been normal since we left the Garden of Eden.

"Advanced" is a heavy word here and Hebraic is fraught, when nature itself exposed pieces of that truth even to the pagans.
What Christ taught was indeed so advanced that Jews were falling away from God himself even before the church was established - and afterwards they fell from the Church itself, even when it was mostly jews running it.
Now the church is mostly gentiles and the truth is with them and their sages, not the hebrews.

>>17841914
>Literally just pick
Which suggestion should I respect - yours? Or the continuous recommendation of the Church since the time of the apostles, backed by millennia of sincere, disciplined exploration?

Blasphemy is a catholo-zionist cope to keep people spiritually subjugated. The truth is that the Old Testament god was evil and Christ was the sun of a totally different and purely benevolent god

>>17841876
the holy spirit is real, it's the divine spark. Christ is sent from Sophia, Sophia is the true god, not the pedophile demon of the Old Testament

>>17841970
>>17841961
>thank you god for not making me a ____
Who is it that talks like this, again?
If the God of the Old Testament isn't the God of the New Testament, then you're lost along with the Jews.

>>17842008
No, Jews only worship the Old Testament god and hate Christ for being a savior to goyim.

>>17842013
I don't see what that has to do with anything.

>hate christ for being a savior to the jews
straight to hell
>hate christ for being a savior to goyim
straight to hell

>>17842023
jews fundamentally hate christ so they'll all never be saved anyway. goyim think that Christ is the human incarnation of the pagan storm demon YHWH so most goyim will be damned too

>>17842054
Sophia sounds like she gives you a lot of conviction but not much wisdom. Talks about mental masturbation.

>>17842067
you're just saying words that mean nothing bro butt out of this

>>17842074
They don't mean anything to you because Sophia has filled your head with fake knowledge and now there's no room for understanding the gospel.

>>17842109
That she's a woman just fits the bill that much better. On the internet, men get distracted by two things - fake women and fake knowledge. Both of them bewitch you and keep you from interacting with the real thing.

>>17842109
you're not speaking gospel, you're speaking the language of down syndrome

>>17841821 (OP)
No human who has ever existed has been a magical sky fairy human or an immortal human. Jesus was homo sapiens sapiens like you or me.

>>17842127
Jesus is the God of the Old Testament - revealed to us by his prophets of the Old Testament.
If you hate the Old Testament, you hate Him.
He saved ethnic hebrews, who practiced judaism - like the Apostles - by visiting them first, and today he saves ethnic jews, who continue to practice a fallen form of judaism, by converting them.

You might not understand this because you're worshipping a demon of the intellect who is siphoning off your patience and love, and I might be doing the same thing by shitposting back at you, but I'd like to take a shot at tickling your brain.

>>17842153
you've been deceived by jewish scribes

>>17842135
The meaning of a painting is derived from the artist, not the paint. That might sound like blasphemy to someone who thinks material created itself and has no "artist", but consider fellas like Brian Cox and Neil Degrass Tyson who will tell you that science explains stuff, and not meta-stuff.

>>17842161
You're a Jew by adoption.

>jesus can't be god! he was killed by romans!
>the old testament god can't be jesus! he allowed jesus to be killed!
two quotes supported by same belief system under the care of different demons.

>>17842168
your house stinks

>>17842449
If you don't like being a jew, then put away the jewish believe that the old testament god did not incarnate in the person of jesus.

>>17842469
belief*

>>17842469
you're gonna go to hell because you were deceived by jews. Do you really want that? I care for you bro

>>17841886
I don't think the healing miracles and resurrection were mythical retellings, but actual events they were trying to record. People have been claiming to be the Messiah since the prophecy was made, but Jesus is the only one who spread so wildly that we base our calendar off of his birth. And this wasn't urban legends that spread centuries after his death, we have Paul's letters to indicate they were spreading like crazy almost immediately after his crucifixion, which we also have written evidence actually happened.

I think some supernatural phenomenon must've happened. Something so unbelievable that thousands of people could witness in person, that there is no way they wouldn't stop telling everyone for decades to come.

Stories about the withering fig tree or talking to Moses' spirit on the mountain? I'm not sure about those. But things like healing the blind or crippled? Yeah, I can see that being the reason why news of this Jesus guy would explode.

>>17841821 (OP)
According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is God. See the following:

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."
(Luke 18:19)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
(John 1:1-2)

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
(John 17:5)

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
(Colossians 2:9)

>>17841821 (OP)
He said
>I am the Son of God
and
>I and my Father are one
so, either way, Muslims are incorrect.

>>17841851
Use the synoptic gospels. Christ is obviously portrayed as divine in John, but this is less obvious (if at all, present) in the synoptics—especially Mark

>>17842802
Next time, save everyone time and just admit you reject the whole Bible, rather than this endless pathetic goalpost moving. This is what disingenuous liars do, anon.

>>17842826
That was my first post in the thread.....

>>17842836
Doesn't matter.

>>17842826
>>17842862
Then, it's standard practice to make use of the synoptics and the known genuine Pauline epistles in the sort of discussion. I can appeal to Tertullian as a defence of Christ's Divinity, but doing so would. A clear evolution in Christology can be seen within the earliest to latest Scriptures. If the discussion is on what Christ actually taught, we ought to use the earliest evidence we have on the matter

In my view, the Marcan episode of Christ claiming to be Daniel's divine Son of Man figure is quite strong, secular evidence for a relatively early high Christology from well within the lifetime of the Apostles (AD ~70). Making use of Paul would be a stronger argument—his epistles being written much earlier than any gospel, as per the standard dating

>>17842802
See Mark 10:18, it says the same thing as Luke 18:19 already linked here: >>17842763 Jesus in this place says that there is none good except God. He never denied that He is good.

In Mark 1:1, it says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

This title points back to the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

In Mark 5:6, the demoniac man worships Jesus. According to Jesus' own sayings in the temptation in the wilderness, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

Likewise in Mark 7:7, Jesus says, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men." He clearly accepted worship, and this does not clash with His own teaching about worship being due to God alone.

In Matthew 9:4 and Matthew 12:25, it says Jesus knows the thoughts of the scribes and Pharisees and responds to their thoughts.

In Matthew 28:19, it says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

In Matthew 22:45 and Luke 20:44, Jesus claims that Christ is the Lord as identified in Psalm 110:1. He is also given the title "Christ" throughout all the Gospels. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is also called by Luke as narrator, "The Lord" numerous times, for example in Luke 7:13. He is also worshipped again by the apostles at the ending of Luke where He ascended into heaven. In Luke 19:31, He Himself identifies as Lord. One can find near endless examples.

You have to be avoiding all of these examples on purpose to miss them, or simply have never read it. I could find more in any of these Gospels, or John, the book of Acts, and the rest. If you are being honest, you basically have to admit that you reject the whole Bible to be like this.

>>17842896
>doing so would.
Sorry
Doing so would be a pointless endeavour, being farther away from Christ's ministry and at a time of established high Christology *

>>17842896
>Then, it's standard practice to make use of the synoptics and the known genuine Pauline epistles
Huh? Dude, no one on earth is actually like this.

There are people who actually believe the Bible and see how it fits together, and then you have scholars who believe none of it, and are trying to pick it apart. Only the latter hold this to be "standard practice," and they still fail. If you find something they don't like, they say it's not "genuine." Feminists for example want to remove a passage in 1 Corinthians for the simple reason that they dislike the doctrine. Such people should just admit they reject the whole Bible rather than making such patently bad faith arguments. It's like they have to operate under the false pretense that they only have a problem with certain verses of the Bible when it's clear they inwardly hate it and reject all of it. Why do these people waste their time like this, pretending like they accept some of the Bible? I think it's because they know the whole Bible is true. The main person they are attempting to convince otherwise is themselves.

>>17842917
Yes, many scholars are atheists and many also aren't. Your idea that there's some sort of inherent contention between scholars and Christians is only true for the low-church protestant, and not even all of those. The idea that 1 Cor. 14:34 is an interpolation is, if memory serves, a relatively fringe view that I don't agree with—but it doesn't arise out of nothing. There are legitimate reasons for holding to it, even if there is politically-motivated bias behind it. These are not bad faith arguments and these positions do not affect the veracity of Christianity.

I agree with your point to some degree, all sciences have a paradigm to uphold that its adherents often claim to be steadfast. There are good, legitimate criticisms of this view, particularly of the anathematisation of dissenters from the paradigm that we see. Nonetheless, small practices such as making use of the earliest evidence to uncover the minimum of Christ's actual ministry is not a crazy idea nor antithetical to the faith

>>17842547
Your choice is between love and knowledge.
Common sense tells you to look to the Church for guidance on this.
But you apparently prefer a secret relationship with a hot demon named Sophia over the actual communion and eucharist established in the New Testament.

>>17842945
>The idea that 1 Cor. 14:34 is an interpolation is, if memory serves, a relatively fringe view that I don't agree with—but it doesn't arise out of nothing.
There are people who think that by undermining one particular part of Scripture, they can undermine the whole thing. Or simply turn the Bible into a playground where they pick and choose what parts they want to keep, which is what the critical text essentially represents. Notice how they want to remove the ending of Mark really badly because of just two manuscripts that don't have it, out of thousands of others that all have the ending. Yet, the same people reject many interpolations that are unique to, but shared by, those same two manuscripts in other places. It's not a science, it's just arbitrary preference. There are even worse examples of this arbitrary decision-making in other passages.

The basic temptation behind this is, essentially, not that different from what motivated cult leaders in the past to make up ripped off versions of Scripture historically. As such, it is extremely bad faith.

Especially bad is when I see people pretend that these highly altered forms of Scripture are merely using "updated language." This is done as what seems to be a marketing ploy - as if these more modern translations were only making minor changes to a few archaic words and changing them to the modern equivalents, when that's absolutely not even remotely close to what they're really doing at all.

>There are good, legitimate criticisms of this view, particularly of the anathematisation of dissenters from the paradigm that we see.
I'm always willing to talk because I have the truth on my side, so there's never anything to hide. It's not always the same for the other side. Sleight of hand and trickery are their mainstays. For instance, they present the evidence misleadingly to give the false impression that there are many more than two ancient Greek manuscripts missing the ending of Mark, when there are not.

>>17842900
>WAAAAAAHHHHH HISTORY AND SCIENCE DONT AGREE WITH ME FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU
The apostles didn't write the Bible. They come hundreds of years after Christs death (save for Paul who was tripping on shrooms and never actually met Jesus) and the belief they were made by the Apostles come from the Catholic Church’s fanfic. Which if you're Catholic fair enough, but if you're anything else then its just sad.
>>17842917
>THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD
>THE PEOPLE WHO DONT KNOW SHIT AND GO OFF OF FEELINGS
>AND THOSE WHO KNOW SHIT AND THINK THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT
>WE SHOULD ALL GO OFF FEELINGS

>>17842917
Entire books have been removed and added to the Bible at will of “believers”.

>>17843247
I don't think you meant to (You) me
>They come hundreds of years after Christs death
The latest addition (Jude or 1/2 Peter, if memory serves) to the standard New Testament (ignoring the Ethiopic canon) is written, at the latest estimate, the end of the second century. All Gospels were written between AD ~65–95, with good arguments for earlier datings

>>17843247
>THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD
There are two possible suppositions. Some people presuppose that it is true and are able to see how it fits. Others presuppose that it must be false, and working under that assumption they are never able to understand it.

Jesus is not "God" but he was someone who realized the spiritual path and became god basically. He's mentioned in a Purana as a devotee of Vishnu, not sure how legit that is but he's definitely god in a spiritual sense not like god made flesh though.

>>17843434
>If you believe hard enough the contradictions and the historical contexts that don't fit together suddenly fit together
Nah you're just low iq
>A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.
>First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.
>Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.
>Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence.
>Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

>>17841821 (OP)
>An invisible, immortal magical jew from Israel is God

>>17842135
If hydrogen can develop into a fish that eventually grow legs to crawl on land then surely God can be become human.

>>17841876
The "holy trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible.

>>17844171
Nice try, rabbi

Did the jewish god tell his prophets the incorrect state of this planet as a joke?

>>17847333
Why is this not allowed to be a metaphysical description again?

>>17842802
>Mark
Im pretty sure its intentionally ambiguous, so as yo ne left up to the reader to decide. This is why Jesus has two natures.

>>17847459
>it's a metaphor copium

One it uses itself as a scientific explanation (the waters above are the source of rain)

And two because Elijah and Jesus literally flew up to gods kingdom according to your narrative

>>17847615
I'm sorry but it's still more complex than that. Human beings are trippy and technical explanations were historically layered with metaphor. We didnt separate science from metaphysics until recently and even if the technology advances, the symbols dont.


The bible wasn't written by Isaac Newton - -a guy, with a particular technique, and a goal.
It's a collective, human project and it's allowed to be onvoluted, because thats what we are.

Your psyche experiences the world in two capacities simultaneously. The language of reason in your conscious mind, and the language of symbols in the unconscious mind. Whichever language is dominant depends on whether you're awake, and the left side of your brain is active, or asleep, when the right is.