Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?

[jimvansage]

I guess it depends on your interpretation of each of the prophecies attributed to Him.

And the mentions of Jesus (or Christ) in history

Weren't all of the apostles Jews? The early church from Acts 2 to Acts 9 was entirely Jewish (as many as 5000 according to Acts 4)?
that's not really the point, but interesting to consider.

[catalyst]

I guess it depends on your interpretation of each of the prophecies attributed to Him.

And the mentions of Jesus (or Christ) in history

Weren't all of the apostles Jews? The early church from Acts 2 to Acts 9 was entirely Jewish (as many as 5000 according to Acts 4)?
that's not really the point, but interesting to consider.

Who are you addressing, jimvasange?

Catalyst

[kayky]

The gospels themselves are nothing more than hearsay rumors that were obviously written long after Jesus had lived and died (assuming a person who sparked these rumors about a man named Jesus even actually existed).

I hardly think it's anything as nefarious as that. The Gospels were written to provide a liturgical rendering of the teachings of Jesus. They have some of the elements of the parables Jesus himself used to teach his followers.

My previous post was not a "logical argument" that Jesus was the Son of God. It was merely an example of how such a "logical deduction" could be made give the biblical rumors as "premises" from which to make such deductions.

I understood what you were saying.

The question then is not one of "logical deduction" but rather the question is whether or not the premises that are being used to make those "deductions" are credible premises.

Logic has little to do with what a person accepts as initial information from which to begin to make "logical deductions".

The Gospels aren't meant to appeal to human logic.

You suggest that the contents of the Bible contain many mythical and allegorical elements. I would agree. In fact, there are many people who take the stance that they are nothing more than superstitious gossip. I tend to be among those who believe the latter.

But I am a person who places a great deal of stock in the effectiveness of myth and allegory as teaching tools.

The original quote offered in the OP states the following:

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

Logical deduction from what?

You can't deduce without logical premises. The Gospels don't even lend themselves to that process.

Outside of the Biblical fables there is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus even existed much less that he was the son of God.

Therefore if jimvansage believes that he can logically deduce that Jesus was the Son of God, he must necessarily be making deductions based upon the biblical fables to begin with.

I personally would even take that a position against that in debate. I hold that even within the biblical fables themselves it can be shown that Jesus could not possibly have been the Son of the God of Abraham. It doesn't even hold water within the context of the fables, IMHO.

I believe that Jesus was a man who fully realized his identity in God, and his message was that we all can do the same. I think he would be appalled by the religion that has grown around that teaching.

What I had given here in my original post to this thread was truly superficial. After all, we all know that the New Testament fables proclaim Jesus to be the Only Begotten Son of God. That's a given. It's right there in the text.

I tend to agree with the Jews that based on the Old Testament Jesus could not possibly have been the promised messiah. Jesus was never handed the throne of King David. So the idea that Jesus could have been "The Christ" doesn't work.

It's crystal clear, I think (as do the Jews)

Isaac Newton also came to this same conclusion.

The Greek Christ does not even correspond with the Hebrew Messiah, according to my limited understanding of the matter.

It would be interesting to hear why jimvansage thinks he can logically "deduce" that Jesus was the Son of God.

I feel confident that I'm not going to be impressed with his reasons because I've been through this far too many times. I have no doubt that I would find extremely flaws in ever bit of "evidence" that he might point to.

I'd debate with him on that issue if he likes. But he better be prepared for the fact that I'm not going to accept biblical myths as "Gospels Truths".

That's faith. That's not LOGIC.

I can't speak for Jim, but I might guess his argument will be based on a literal reading of the Gospels.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight - If I accept what you say is true, is it faith or logic?

No need to place any faith in what I say. Everything I say is based soundly on logic that you can easily verify for yourself.

FACT: The Jews themselves did not accept the rumors that Jesus was "The Christ".

FACT: Even according to the Gospels the Pharisees of the day did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.

FACT: Even according to the Gospels Pontius Pilate acquitted Jesus on the charges of claiming to be "King of the Jews".

So even according to the Gospels there's no logical reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God, unless you're going to go by things like "God spoke from a cloud proclaiming it to be so", etc.

But if you believe things like that then where does logic come into play?

It seems one would need to determine if Jesus is a historical figure before claiming that He be the son of God, but that's two debates it would seem.

Absolutely. If you can't even show reasonable evidence that he existed at all you'd be hard-pressed trying to prove that he was God.

To the best of my knowledge no such independent historical evidence for Jesus exists. And even if it did I personally wouldn't be impressed by it because I already accept that there's a high probability that the life and times of some actual human probably did play a role in sparking the Biblical superstitious rumors.

Although I conceded to those who believe that Jesus was entirely a fictional character that their views certainly have merit. In fact, even if some actual person gave rise to these superstitious rumors, the actual "Jesus" as portrayed in the Gospels would still be a "fictional character" with respect to the actual person who may have sparked the rumors.

I mean, if you think about it, imagine taking the life of some human being, dramatizing it, adding to it outlandish "miracles", etc. And embellishing it to the point where it no longer conveys the actual events in that person's life. Would that character still be "real" or would the overzealous superstitions about the person have actually created a totally "fictitious" character, even though the rumors may have been sparked by a real person?

So when I say that "Jesus may have actually lived", I'm not so sure that I'm even speaking of the actual "Jesus" as portrayed in the Bible. The person who actually lived and sparked those superstitious rumors was probably quite different.

I would much rather debate the existence of God or the Divine Inspiration of the Bible, but eventually would like to tackle this debate as well.

I would be glad to debate with you on the potential existence of the "Biblical God". I have many reasons why I feel that picture of God cannot possibly be true.

However, I wouldn't care to debate against a generalized abstract idea of "God" (or a divine essence to life), because that's a whole different ball-game. I personally belief that it's quite plausible that life has a divine essence.

But the biblical picture of God? No way. Not unless you're prepared to toss out most of the Bible as being "non-literal".

But if you're willing to do that, then why even bother taking on the debate?

A Bible that is rejected as being unworthy of taking "literally" isn't even worth discussing, IMHO.

So yes, if you'd like to debate the topic of the existence of the Biblical God, as this God is portray in the literal Bible, I'd be glad to take up that debate. My position would be that such a God would be a total contradiction to what the bible claims God is supposed to be like.

Thus my conclusion must necessarily be that the Biblical God is entirely superstitious fictional myth. That's would be my position in that debate.

[jimvansage]

I was speaking of God in general rather than the biblical God, but I believe they match (eternal, perfect, omniscient, etc.) We've already got a good discussion going in that regard elsewhere.

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?

Maybe if we can agree (in that thread) on what the "divine essence" is we could debate whether that definition matches up to the biblical account. I'd like to know your objections nonetheless.

I understand that the rulers rejected Him ("We have no king but Caesar"), but 5000 Jews did accept Him (Acts 4 - see how Peter applies Psalm 2; He calls the Jewish leaders Gentiles/heathens (in a spiritual sense) because they had claimed Caesar as their king rather than Jesus...if you take the account literally of course) as well as the Gentiles (the Old Testament promises of mercy being showed to the Gentiles outlined in Romans 9 should be enough evidence of the Old Testament's inspiration and fulfillment in Jesus - what Jew in his right mind would have written that God is a God of the Gentiles also, be it Isaiah or Paul or Peter...if the Bible can be read literally of course)

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things" John 4:25
Both terms mean "anointed"

This debate cannot happen until we sort out the basic propositions
1. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure (lived in Palestine, crucified by Pontius Pilate ca. AD 30).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Bible CAN'T be understood literally - certainly not all is to be understood literally ("I am the Door"), but if you assume NOTHING is to be understood literally, again, there is no point in carrying on this debate, even presenting an argument.

[Divine Insight]

I was speaking of God in general rather than the biblical God, but I believe they match (eternal, perfect, omniscient, etc.) We've already got a good discussion going in that regard elsewhere.

Before you can even begin to debate on the concept of "God" you must first define what you even mean by the term. If you are going to consider only "external" personified ideas of Godheads who have egos, like the Greek Zeus, or the biblical Yahweh, then I already have huge objections to those kinds of ideas.

An egotistical God who creates "souls" for pets is already a God who has been reduced to the human condition (and even a very poor human condition at that). Such a God would be more desperate them a mere mortal human.


I would also passionately disagree with the idea that there is anything "perfect" about the Biblical God. On the contrary, I would argue that the Biblical myths of God aren't even very good as mere man-made myths. They represent some of the worse God-myths that men have ever come up with, IMHO.

So I would argue that there is not comparison at all with an imagined (eternal, perfect, omniscient, etc., God) and the God portrayed in the Bible. The ideas of perfection, omniscience, wise, benevolent, etc, are totally lost on the Biblical picture of God.

Maybe if we can agree (in that thread) on what the "divine essence" is we could debate whether that definition matches up to the biblical account. I'd like to know your objections nonetheless.

I'll take a look at that thread and offer my views.

I understand that the rulers rejected Him ("We have no king but Caesar"),

No that's false. The ruler Pontius Pilate did not "reject him as King", on the contrary he acquitted Jesus on the charges that he even claimed to be King.

Pontius Pilate found Jesus "Not Guilty" of the charges.

but 5000 Jews did accept Him (Acts 4 - see how Peter applies Psalm 2; He calls the Jewish leaders Gentiles/heathens (in a spiritual sense) because they had claimed Caesar as their king rather than Jesus...

Jesus didn't go around proclaiming to be "King". In fact, Jesus himself acknowledged Caesar as King.

if you take the account literally of course) as well as the Gentiles (the Old Testament promises of mercy being showed to the Gentiles outlined in Romans 9 should be enough evidence of the Old Testament's inspiration and fulfillment in Jesus - what Jew in his right mind would have written that God is a God of the Gentiles also, be it Isaiah or Paul or Peter...if the Bible can be read literally of course)

Judaism was not a well-defined hard-core dogma that the Christians would like to believe. Many Jews had different views on "God".

But yes, it does seem that anyone who believes in the literal teachings of the Torah would be shocked to hear of any believer of the God of the Torah to support that mercy should be shown to "Gentiles" which is just another word for "Pagans". A Gentile is simple anyone who doesn't believe in the Jewish God of the Torah. Gentiles would be Pagans, some would even call them "Heathens".

The fact that Jesus himself recognized the spiritual validity of pagans shows that he did not accept the teachings of the Torah himself.

Jesus renounced a lot of teachings of the Torah. He renounced the seeking of revenge as in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", and instead he taught forgiveness, and to "turn the other cheek", and to love your enemies.

Jesus renounced the judging of others to be sinners and the stoning of people to death for their sins. Instead he taught not to judge others, and not to cast the first stone.

So Jesus renounced much of the teachings of the Torah. Including that non-believers of that dogma should be cast out as "heathens", instead, as you point out, Jesus supported the spiritual validity of Pagans (i.e. Gentiles)

It's my personal view that Jesus was most likely a pantheistic-minded Jew (there were many pantheistic minded Jews at that time, and in fact, still are today), he was probably also quite well-versed in the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, and I personally believe that he was indeed a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

Everything that Jesus supposedly did and taught fit that scenario far better than anything else. Jesus clearly did not support the teachings of the Torah as the "Word of God". At least not in a verbatim sense as he clearly renounced many of the things that were taught in the Torah, and he even embraced Pagans, (or Gentiles, if you like).

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things" John 4:25
Both terms mean "anointed"

I couldn't care less about these kind of trivial details. I take everything that is written in the Bible with a grain of salt to begin with. Secondly, and far more importantly, the crux of Christianity is that Jesus was "The Messiah", or "The Christ" precised to come in the Torah. That does not equate to merely "an anointed one".

"The Christ" of Christianity is being held up as the "Sacrificial Lamb of God". So, yes, the woman John was referring to was probably saying something entirely different from what Christianity holds to be true. In fact, John the Baptist could be said to have been an "anointed one" in that more generic abstract meaning.

This debate cannot happen until we sort out the basic propositions
1. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure (lived in Palestine, crucified by Pontius Pilate ca. AD 30).

Even according to the gospels Jesus was NOT crucified by Pontius Pilate. On the contrary the gospels have Pontius Pilate exonerating Jesus on all charges and washing his hands of the whole affair.

If this event actually took place, what most likely happened is that Pontius Pilot allowed the Pharisees to do that they would with Jesus and assigned some Roman soldiers to dot their bidding. Quite "unofficially" I might add.

The Romans were very meticulous about documenting their crucifixions and the crucifixion of Jesus is nowhere to be found in Roman history. So if Pontius Pilot and his soldiers played any role at all in the crucifixion of "Jesus" that entire event was done "under the table" so-to-speak in terms of official Roman recognition.

The only place this story is even told is in the New Testament. There is no independent historical record of any such event.

But, like I say, even according to the gospels Pontius Pilate acquitted Jesus on all charges. So if anything was done to Jesus it wasn't the Romans who did it, it was the Jewish Pharisees.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Bible CAN'T be understood literally - certainly not all is to be understood literally ("I am the Door"), but if you assume NOTHING is to be understood literally, again, there is no point in carrying on this debate, even presenting an argument.

I never said that it CAN'T be understood literally.

I said that it makes no sense when taken "literally" even in the most abstract sense.

Don't take the term "literal" too absolutely.

For example consider the following from the book of Genesis:

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

What do I mean, when I say that this must be taken literally? Do I mean that we must accept precisely every single word exactly as it is written?

No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean by taking it "literally" is that this verse clearly has God cursing this "serpent" (whatever that might mean), with some clearly horrible curse. Maybe "crawling on the belly" and "eating dust" are metaphors as well.

The details don't matter. The "Literal Point" is that this God solved this problem with clearly violent means. Moreover according to the rest of the Biblical fables this didn't even "solve" anything as the "evil serpent" is evidently still corrupting people to this very day.

So no matter how abstractly you take it, the "Literal Message" is the same. This God attempts to solve his problems using violent mean and cruel punishments that never work anyway.

Then God turn to Eve and says:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Take this as abstractly as you like. The "Literal Meaning" is unchanged.

The "Literal Meaning" is that God curses the woman with greatly multiply sorrow, obviously to do with conception and childbirth. And in addition to that he supports male-chauvinism and degrees that the husband shall rule over the wife.

For this entire religion this picture of Adam and Eve applies to all human men and women. After all, if it doesn't then we'd have no need to repent or seek salvation. In fact, many hold that this "original sin" guarantees that all humans are in dire need of repentance.

And yet again, it demonstrates that this God can only think in terms of causing people pain and suffering as his supposedly "all-wise solutions" to problems. And again, they never seem to work.

What's up with causing women to have greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth? How is that a "productive solution" to anything?

IMHO, it's an utterly stupid superstitious fable that was clearly made up by a perverted society who thinks that causing people pain is the only way to get them to behave.

There is no way that this appears to be the "all-wise" solution to problems.

It's neither wise, nor productive. IMHO, quite frankly it utterly stupid.

And the buck starts here in Genesis. If you're going to consider whether or not Jesus was the "Son of the God of Abraham" then you had better first justify the God of Abraham as even being a worthy God to begin with.

Also you're supposed to love THIS GOD, with all your heart, mind, and soul, NOT JESUS!

Jesus was the total opposite of the God of Old Testament. It's EASY to love Jesus. Jesus was all about love. Jesus himself rebuked the nasty things that we all hate about the God of Abraham.

In fact, that's precisely why Christianity Love Jesus so much.

Jesus rebuked that God of Abraham and took an entirely different view on humanity even to go as far as embracing pagans (or gentiles) as you point out.

Something the God of Abraham would have never done. The God of Abraham commanded people to seek out heathens and stone them to death. Something that Jesus would never stand for.

Even based on these fables alone, (as pure fiction) they aren't even a consistent fairytale. Even as a purely fictional story it fails to make a convincing connection between Jesus and the God of Abraham. They were as OPPOSITE as can possibly be.

So the Biblical picture of God shoots itself in its own foot.

It's not even worthy of consideration on any level.

[jimvansage]

My fault. The timing of His death was under the procuratorship of Pilate (though what a man allows to be done,he can also be said to do)

Jesus admitted He was a king in a spiritual sense, of a spiritual kingdom (John 18:37)

Jesus renounced a lot of teachings of the Torah.

You could say renounced, one could say provided additional information and principles, expounded upon them, etc.

He renounced the seeking of revenge as in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", and instead he taught forgiveness, and to "turn the other cheek", and to love your enemies.

Jesus rebuked that God of Abraham and took an entirely different view on humanity even to go as far as embracing pagans (or gentiles) as you point out---"I and my father are one"? (John 10:30)

It's not even worthy of consideration on any level.[/quote]
Not worthy of consideration? Then I'm wasting my time responding to this.

If one is going to say that Jesus or Christ has no mention outside of the Bible or Christian writings, we ought to at least discuss some pagan and Jewish sources that allegedly speak of Him (Josephus, Talmud, Pliny and Trajan, etc.) If you think these things or the Bible are not worthy of consideration, then far be it from me to bring it to your attention; but do you think you can explain away or prove that these references are fictional, mythical, interpolations, or offer some other explanation other than the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

[McCulloch]

If one is going to say that Jesus or Christ has no mention outside of the Bible or Christian writings, we ought to at least discuss some pagan and Jewish sources that allegedly speak of Him (Josephus, Talmud, Pliny and Trajan, etc.) If you think these things or the Bible are not worthy of consideration, then far be it from me to bring it to your attention; but do you think you can explain away or prove that these references are fictional, mythical, interpolations, or offer some other explanation other than the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

There is very little of any substance in any of the pagan or Jewish sources you cite. The only real valid conclusions one can get from these sources is that there was in existence a group of believers in the second half of the first century, disciples of Christ, who believed that Jesus was Messiah, Prophet, Savior and/or Son of God.

[McCulloch]

I understand that the rulers rejected Him ("We have no king but Caesar"), but 5000 Jews did accept Him

There are good reasons to believe that the great numbers of converts to Jesus reported in the New Testament are exaggerations.

[Divine Insight]

My fault. The timing of His death was under the procuratorship of Pilate (though what a man allows to be done,he can also be said to do)

If you want to "blame" Pilate because he allowed the Pharisees to have their way with Jesus be my guest. Pointing fingers of "blame" is typical of what Christianity does. They totally miss the point. The point is that Pilate found Jesus to no guilty of proclaiming to be "King".

Jesus admitted He was a king in a spiritual sense, of a spiritual kingdom (John 18:37)

In that spiritual sense most Mahayana Buddhist would indeed take that point of view. You are the king of your own spiritual essence and no one can take that away from you.

Jesus renounced a lot of teachings of the Torah.

You could say renounced, one could say provided additional information and principles, expounded upon them, etc.

You'd have to be truly desperate to support these myths beyond reason to take that stance. Flat-out rejecting the teachings in favor of replacing them with their polar opposites could not in any way be supported as "providing additional information" or merely "expounding on them".

These are the fallacies of the Apologists. Jesus clearly held view that were the polar opposite of the immoral values that had been assigned to the God of the Torah.

How can anyone take seriously your proposal here when the teachings of Jesus were so opposite to those of the Torah?

He renounced the seeking of revenge as in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", and instead he taught forgiveness, and to "turn the other cheek", and to love your enemies.

Jesus rebuked that God of Abraham and took an entirely different view on humanity even to go as far as embracing pagans (or gentiles) as you point out---"I and my father are one"? (John 10:30)

Any Mahayana Buddhist would claim that "I and my Father are one" in a spiritual sense. Buddhism holds as an underlying premise, "Tat T'vam Asi". Meaning "You are it". You are the spiritual entity that you seek. You and the Father are one.

I post this following point a lot but since you probably haven't yet read it, consider the following:

When Jesus was accused of blaspheme for having said, "I and the Father are one", what was his defense? Did he stand by the claim of being some sort of special God?

No he didn't. On the contrary he appealed to the Torah (calling it "your law when speaking to the pharisees and pointed out that everyone has the right to say that they and the Father are one.

John.10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

He didn't even refer to the Torah as "God's Word", on the contrary he referred to it as "your law" when speaking to the Pharisees whom he also called hypocrites.

As far as I'm concerned that's precisely what a clever Mahayana Buddhist would do. He's point out that even in their religious folklore it is written that "Ye are Gods".

And that was his DEFENSE. Thus he clearly wasn't claiming to be anything special for if he was then why would he turn to this defense, which would have been a LIE, had he truly meant that he was somehow a special incarnation of God.

You'd have to believe that Jesus was purposefully misleading the Pharisees as to what he actually meant. But that would be the same as lying.

We can't have Jesus as the only begotten son of God lying it.

So he must have been a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist.

It's not even worthy of consideration on any level.

Not worthy of consideration? Then I'm wasting my time responding to this.

If you're trying to convince me that there is any merit to the Hebrew fables, yes, you are indeed wasting your time. I'm certain that they cannot possibly be true verbatim as written. They are riddled with self-contradictions and outright absurdities. There is no hope for them IMHO. They are beyond salvage.

May as well be beating a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.

If one is going to say that Jesus or Christ has no mention outside of the Bible or Christian writings, we ought to at least discuss some pagan and Jewish sources that allegedly speak of Him (Josephus, Talmud, Pliny and Trajan, etc.) If you think these things or the Bible are not worthy of consideration, then far be it from me to bring it to your attention; but do you think you can explain away or prove that these references are fictional, mythical, interpolations, or offer some other explanation other than the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

You haven't brought anything new to my attention. I'm in total agreement with McCulloch on that point.

Men are known to go to great lengths to support these superstitions. Just look around today and you'll see tons of people who will basically vow to their grave that these fables are true, etc. And they also make outrageous claims to try to support them ignorant all the facts against them.

Not to imply that you are one of these people, but based on what you've said a moment ago, I can't help but begin to see you in this category

Earlier in your post you said:

Jesus renounced a lot of teachings of the Torah.

You could say renounced, one could say provided additional information and principles, expounded upon them, etc.

That's not even a reasonable argument, IMHO.

You're talking about things that are so diametrically opposed in what they stand for, yet you suggest that they are merely "additional information" or merely being "expounded upon".

No. That's not even reasonable. They are total rejections and replacements of old values with new.

The moral principles that Jesus stood for are far more in line with the moral principles of Mahayana Buddhism (which was at its peak at that time in history by the way), and totally opposite to the immoral things that had been attributed to the God of the Torah.

They aren't even remotely close. To suggest that they are merely "additional information, or expounding on previous values is, IMHO, utter nonsense.

That, IMHO, is an apologetic argument that is truly scraping at the bottom of the barrel in hopes of keeping something alive that has absolutely no merit whatsoever.