Does Christianity make a claim no other religion makes?

reply to post by adjensen

I honestly don't know why I bother with you -- you've never shown anything but ignorance and petulance when it comes to actually understanding what Christians believe and why. I don't think that you need to agree with it, but refusing to even bother trying to understand it is arrogant, childish and ignorant.

That's certainly a most forgiving attitude you have there. I wonder if that's how Jesus would have responded. If it means spreading the word of God, why would it bother you? You seem impatient. Is that a Christian virtue? Should I practice it? Should I bother listening to you when you don't have the patience to explain it?

Much emphasis is placed on the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, human mother and a god. Among believers, there is no doubt that this is the reality of Jesus' origin. As such, he is a demigod because he was born of a mortal and a god. Did he not come from Mary's womb? Is he not the child of a deity? If the answer to both questions is 'yes', then he is a demigod. There is no denying it. He is the Hercules of the Christian mythos. Your intense hostility suggests that you are uncomfortable with the idea of worshipping a demigod. Why does it cause you such distress? You wouldn't be the first to worship a demigod. People have been worshipping them for thousands and thousands of years. The pagans worshipped them, in fact. Worshipped the union between man and god. Symbolic, really. Acceptance of the divinity within us. Maybe that's why you hate it so much. There absolutely must be a divide between our world and his, right? That connection must be exclusive, and under his complete control. It's unthinkable to suggest that perhaps we hold just as much power as he does. It's abhorrent to ponder the possibility that perhaps God isn't so set apart from us after all. It would be sacrilege to acknowledge the idea that we're never really known what God actually is. We must avoid that at all costs. God must be exalted beyond any resemblance of human stature. Nothing less than perfect is acceptable. And with him, Jesus too. For what reason? Because we need a prize to keep our eyes on? Because we need a finish line? We need a constant reminder of what whimsical abstract constructs we wish we could be, as opposed to the animals we actually are? Because we need to believe that our dreams are actually possible, so we need an avatar through which to envision and realize our greatest hopes for the human race? Because we're so terribly afraid of absolute termination and inevitable inconsequence? A more delicious piece of cheese to disguise that vicious mousetrap couldn't be found. But I still would think we could see through the ruse. Evidently not. The mice continue to pile up, a mountain of self-denigration and blind passion...

But enough of my rambling. I don't care what the Nicene Creed says. Your little excerpt explains nothing regarding Jesus' nature, so it doesn't deny what I have said either. If you truly want me to understand, you will explain. But I too grow weary of this argument. You cannot argue with history. It's all there. Do some research on demigods. I've already given you a link on the definition. If you want more, you know how to find it.

reply to post by adjensen


Could you explain how Jesus could have been fully human if he wasn't under the condition of sin? If he never sinned and was unable to do so, how could he be considered fully man when Christians believe all men are bound to sin?

The Doctrine of Incarnation clashes with the Christian belief of Jesus being completely sinless. He was not a man if he did not sin according to biblical teachings.

reply to post by adjensen

The Doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Christ was fully God and fully human, not half and half. While one might disagree with that doctrine, it is what Christians believe, and profess in the creeds, so saying that Christians worship a demigod is not true.

Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

The definition of "Christian" has nothing to do with "creeds".

From your link:

The Incarnation of Christ
In addition to the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation is held as a specifically Christian belief. For Christianity, the second member of the Trinity “became flesh.” This doctrine is important for two reasons. First, it assumes the doctrine of the Trinity. Second, it tells us that God became a man and walked among us.

The doctrine of the trinity has nothing to do with the life and teachings of Jesus.

I just love how Catholics think that they have a monopoly on who can call themselves Christians, and under what circumstances.

Anyone who follows the religion (Christian) based on the life and teachings of JESUS, not Paul, and/or believes that Jesus is Christ, is a Christian.

By your own definition "Christ" means nothing more than anointed. Many Biblical characters were "anointed", but not considered gods. Jesus didn't teach that he was "GOD", therefore one doesn't have to believe that Jesus is God, or a wing of the trinity, to be a Christian.

The life and teachings of Jesus are no more unique than that of Buddha. The only things that make Christianity unique are the tacked on afterthoughts of other men, and the made up doctrines of the Catholic Church, some of which were adopted by other Christian sects.

reply to post by windword

Jesus didn't teach that he was "GOD",

Yes he did. He claimed that he was in God, God was in him, and that he and the Holy Spirit were of the same. Was he not prophecied to be such? Was he not foretold as God become man? And didn't he confirm it in his teachings? Asking to be recognized as his father and all that?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Yes he did. He claimed that he was in God, God was in him, and that he and the Holy Spirit were of the same.

Do you have a scripture to back that claim? Among others, I have this:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Does "God" have a "God"?

Was he not prophecied to be such? Was he not foretold as God become man?

I'm not aware of any prophecy that says that God himself will come down and become human. I do have this:

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”

And didn't he confirm it in his teachings? Asking to be recognized as his father and all that?

Not as far as I can see.

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There's a difference between claiming to be a part of God and having a monopoly on the title. Even Jesus confirmed that "ye are gods".

The difference between what Jesus said and what the church says is the Jesus never claimed to have a monopoly on the title, the church says that he does. When Jesus spoke of himself, he was by extension speaking about the rest of mankind

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If the answer to both questions is 'yes', then he is a demigod. There is no denying it.

Yes, there is, because "demi" means half, and Christianity teaches that Christ is fully God and fully man, not "half man, half god", which you would have known if you bothered to read the link to the Doctrine of the Incarnation that I gave you earlier.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

There's a difference between claiming to be a part of God and having a monopoly on the title. Even Jesus confirmed that "ye are gods".

The difference between what Jesus said and what the church says is the Jesus never claimed to have a monopoly on the title, the church says that he does. When Jesus spoke of himself, he was by extension speaking about the rest of mankind

Does that include when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

I know I wasn't around before Abraham, were you?

reply to post by FreeMason

Does that include when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

I know I wasn't around before Abraham, were you?

Or maybe you just don't remember it. Another life lived long ago.

reply to post by adjensen

Yes, there is, because "demi" means half, and Christianity teaches that Christ is fully God and fully man, not "half man, half god", which you would have known if you bothered to read the link to the Doctrine of the Incarnation that I gave you earlier.

That is freakin' impossible. Seriously! All I hear about is how we are scum to God, we are dirt to him, and he had the grace to accept us blah blah blah. If humankind is so low beneath God and all of his impeccable stature, then how can someone be both human and God at the same time? That is impossible. You're talking nonsense. The only way it's possible is if God and man are one and the same. That is the only way they can exist in the same space simultaneously.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Could you explain how Jesus could have been fully human if he wasn't under the condition of sin? If he never sinned and was unable to do so, how could he be considered fully man when Christians believe all men are bound to sin?

The Doctrine of Incarnation clashes with the Christian belief of Jesus being completely sinless. He was not a man if he did not sin according to biblical teachings.

Sin is not hat makes us human.

Also, concerning prophecy of God being born a man? "I will provide the sacrifice". What sacrifice could God provide that would be adequate other than God?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FreeMason

 

Does that include when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

I know I wasn't around before Abraham, were you?

Or maybe you just don't remember it. Another life lived long ago.

I am, is a clear statement of continuity, Jesus did not say "I was".

reply to post by FreeMason

I am, is a clear statement of continuity, Jesus did not say "I was".

It is continuous in the same way an apple is continuous if you fall asleep while it's sitting there. You stop being aware of it until you wake up again, but it is continuous. You must think outside the box more often.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FreeMason

 

I am, is a clear statement of continuity, Jesus did not say "I was".

It is continuous in the same way an apple is continuous if you fall asleep while it's sitting there. You stop being aware of it until you wake up again, but it is continuous. You must think outside the box more often.

No you must apply parallelism more often.

Jesus by saying "I AM" was quoting the Old Testament when God asked of His name replied, "I AM that I AM".

reply to post by FreeMason

No you must apply parallelism more often.

Jesus by saying "I AM" was quoting the Old Testament when God asked of His name replied, "I AM that I AM".

Do you know what he meant by that?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FreeMason

 

No you must apply parallelism more often.

Jesus by saying "I AM" was quoting the Old Testament when God asked of His name replied, "I AM that I AM".

Do you know what he meant by that?

That he is necessary being, the core concept of God and objective reality.

reply to post by FreeMason

That he is necessary being, the core concept of God and objective reality.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FreeMason

 

That he is necessary being, the core concept of God and objective reality.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that.

The most essential aspect of God is that He is necessary, existence can't exist without Him, because all objectivity is reliant upon Him.

It's kinda a complex philosophical discussion just google necessary being for more information I can't describe it with any justice.

But, I AM is a perfect statement for God to make of Himself, it implies living, existence, authority, etc., all at once.

reply to post by FreeMason

That he is necessary being, the core concept of God and objective reality.

So in your mind, "I am that I am" translates to "I am necessary"? That makes no sense.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FreeMason

 

That he is necessary being, the core concept of God and objective reality.

So in your mind, "I am that I am" translates to "I am necessary"? That makes no sense.

I translates more than just "necessary" it encapsulates the entire logic of the argument for God. What more could a God define Himself by than a statement of existence?