Changes

Now before you start flaming me with why atheism is better Christianity, let me make one thing clear. I am an atheist. That's right, you heard me. I am an atheist Christian. How can that be, you may ask? Well, it's simple. There's no God, no Satan. No creation in seven days, no miracles (at least not the water-into-wine kind), no ressurrection. Just Jesus, a human. So what? Jesus was just a human, right? That's right, he was. But he's one of the greatest humans who ever lived. His words have inspired billions, myself included. Billions have chosen to live by his example, but sadly, most of them only do so because they think he's the divine son of God. They ignore the words he said, and only worship him because they think it's the only way to get into Heaven. Fools, there is no Heaven. The only Heaven that exists is the one we make for ourselves. One could argue that my church and I are the best Christians of all, because we love Jesus for who he was, how he LIVED. Not how he was born or how he died. What is a Christian? One who accepts Jesus as their lord and savior. And I have, Jesus is my savior. He's a savior of many. Because his words have enriched the lives of many, and in this he has given salvation. A few of my friends were on the verge of suicide before they learned about Jesus. How, then, can you say Jesus doesn't save?

 

Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's according to the Jews of His time. The Son of God that became the sin offering for all of mankind. Need more? Read the rest of the Old and New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

 

==Sorta-kinda-but-certainly-not-as-clearly-as-you'd-expect==

This is, I think, a fairly well-known puzzle. I'm no expert on this. Briefly, in the New Testament, lots of ''other'' people call him the Son of God, but Jesus consistently calls himself the "Son of man"—and nobody's absolutely sure what he meant by that—and his references to his relationship to God seem more in the nature of hints than simple statements.

 

In John 9:35-37 seems ''fairly'' clear:

:Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

 

Many others ''call'' him the Son of God. ''Mark'' opens with the words "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." And in the Annunciation, the ''angel'' tells Mary "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

 

:Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

 

At this, the priests say "And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."

 

Another indirect reply is this, in Matthew 16:14-17:

 

:When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

This certainly is close to a simple "yes," but not quite.

 

The topic is discussed at length [http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html here], but this seems to me like a clear case of "reading the Bible through stained glass." For example, this page says that "Matthew 26:64; parallel in Mark 14:61-4. The high priest asks Jesus directly if He is the Christ, and Jesus answers in the affirmative." Well, no, he doesn't. The affirmative would be "yes." What Jesus says is

:Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

They ''say'' that ''means'' "yes," but... well, that's not the same as ''saying'' "yes,'' is it?

 

I'm not saying that Jesus ''doesn't'' claim to be God. I'm saying to a non-expert it's ''puzzling'' as to why Jesus uses the roundabout language he uses, ''puzzling'' as to why he uses the phrase "Son of man" so often, and ''puzzling'' as to what, exactly he means by "Son of man" when he uses it.

 

The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia says "The expression is Christ's... It was not invented by the writers of the Gospels to whom it did not appear to be a favourite title, as they never use it of Christ themselves. The early Fathers were of the opinion that the expression was used out of humility and to show Christ's human nature, and this is very probable considering the early rise of Docetism. This is also the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide. Others, such as Knabenbauer, think that He adopted a title which would not give umbrage to His enemies, and which, as time went on, was capable of being applied so as to cover His Messianic claims..." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm] So, in other words, it's puzzling to experts, too. They think, they were of the opinion, but they weren't sure. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:57, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

 

:Well, there is the whole issue of the messianic secret to consider, too, cf. especially Wilhelm Wrede. "...that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand," and all that (Lk 8:10). But turning the question around, he never specifically says that he is ''not'' God, does he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

 

::That's why I entitled the section "sorta-kinda." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

 

 

Bottom line.... Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, and the only real textual support could be nothing more than a simple mistranslation. One would assume that the most fundamental belief of the Christian Church would be spelled out more clearly in a text crafted by God... however it is not.

 

 

In John 8:58 he said: "Verily, verily I say unto you, ''before Abraham was, '''I am.''''' This reference to Exodus 3:14 was not lost on the jews: they tried to stone him for it. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] _{[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]} 14:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

 

:Ever wonder how people can still have this question in their minds?Luke 24:44 "He (Jesus) said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." So that this has been spelled out throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation through the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms and yet people will continue to say that Jesus never claimed it. Their minds remain closed for whatever rationale they have chosen. Let us pray they remain closed for not much longer. I fear that for too many that at even at His second coming they will still retain a closed mind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:20, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

 

 

 

Just because a book written almost 2,000 years ago says he was god doesn't make it correct. Do you believe any other religious text on its supernatural claims? No doubt Jesus existed, and no doubt he was a good person, even a first class revolutionary, but he wasn't a deity. The most likely explanation for biblical supernatural events is that they are made up by people who wanted to be associated with Jesus because they admired him, and then these events were written down as true events. Let's put it this way. Someone wrote a comic about Batman 40 years ago. His exploits have now been copied by two movie directors over the last 50 years, adding details, taking characters, exanding story lines from the comic books. There is almost a cult following of Batman. In a few hundred years someone might unearth a text about this Batman character and think he was a real crime fighter. --[[User:stubbstarbuck|User:stubbstarbuck] 16:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

 

:Hah hah.  That may be true, but when you consider that the Bible is made up of writings written thousands of years apart, and yet all coincide to point to one Messiah, with no contradictions... You can't argue with anything like that.  [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:08, 30 June 2007 (EDT)