|
|
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | ==According to GOD== | | ==According to GOD== |
| | 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) | | 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.
| |
| − | a serious question i think should be asked: Does jesus Love Bum Sex?
| |
| − | 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."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | When Jesus is asked about it, his replies can only be described as... puzzling or indirect. Thus, Luke 22:66-70:
| |
| − | :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. and incest be wrong
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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.Along with my father seated at the right hand will be all those wrongly jusdged by thos who seek to destroy originality.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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? or 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
| |
| − | son of man could mean he had twp fathers joespeh and mark? forget mary girls give you cooties
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Not to my limited knowledge.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Bottom line.... Jesus never claimed to be gay or straight neither did he claim 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. what matters is that he could have loved bum sex!
| |
| | | | |
| | | | |
