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?

[Divine Insight]

It just depends on how you look at it - you admit that your interpretation and rejection are subjective.

All interpretations are subjective whether they reject or accept these ancient fables. In fact, the fables themselves were written as personal interpretations (and very likely exaggerations). Superstitious exaggerations no less.

Why would the real creator of this universe use a virgin woman to produce a demigod son (just like all the other man-made God myths), when he could have just as easily created Jesus from the dust of the desert and have him walk in from nowhere prepared to teach his message?

The mere fact that these superstitious myths are based on precisely the same kinds of scenarios of a gazillion other God myths that were quite popular before the days when Jesus was even supposed to have lived for be a big red flag for you right there.

"Sure. But I hold that if such a supposedly all-wise super-intelligent being actually exists, then he/she/it couldn't possibly be stupid enough to have created such an ignorant and demented scenario as having a demigod nailed to a pole to "pay" for the sins of mankind"

I could just as easily say (albeit subjectively) that "God knew before he created the universe or man that He Himself had to suffer and die because His greatest creation (man) would still be finite and He infinite" and talk about holiness and perfection and love and all that mushy stuff

But that's exactly what you must do to support the Hebrew God myths. You must make excuses for their God character. But those excuses fly in the very face of what that God is supposed to be like.

This God is supposed to be omnipotent and "With God all things are possible", yet in order to keep the Hebrew myth alive, you must reject that notion and proclaim that God is highly restricted in what he can do.

You're basically suggesting here that God "had no choice" in the matter because having to have a demigod son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of his creation is supposedly a mandatory requirement of creating man. To me, that kind of "justification" for the ineptitude of this God is truly bending over backwards and scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to justify and unjustifiable myth.

In fact, I've recently been thinking about starting a thread on that very topic entitled "A Debate with a Fictional God".

I hold that your suggestion here violate that whole "Fall from Grace" scenario that is at the very foundation of the entire biblical canon. If a God knew ahead of time that mankind was not going to be able to follow his commands perfectly, then he would indeed have had to have been utterly stupid to even think that man could. So the whole story of Adam and Eve would make no sense.

Instead of having God "punish" Adam and Eve for their "Fall from Grace" like as if it could have been their fault, if your proposed excuse for God were valid, God should have simply told Adam and Eve at the onset that it's simply not possible for humans to be perfect and therefore they must go through a trial period of life to see whether or not they are worthy of "harvesting" into the realm of the Gods (or whatever the purpose of creation might be).

There would have been no need to have an evil serpent beguile Eve, nor would it make sense for God to have cursed Eve with multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, etc.

In short, your suggestion that God knew beforehand that it would be impossible for humans to "not' fall from grace, then this violates the whole entire biblical fable.

So by trying to create a scenario to "save" these myths by having this be an innate property of creating humans you've actually created a situation where the biblical picture would necessarily need to be a false picture of reality.

This is true of every excuse men come up with in an effort to try to save these God myths.

The pet theory that Jesus studied Buddhism, the possibility, is still not evidence. No matter how similar the teachings, similarity does not necessitate identity.
My body is %70 water. A watermelon is %70 water.
You can't force a relationship based on that without evidence.

The pet theory that Jesus was a demigod son of an inept and restricted God who is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent is not evidence either. On the contrary its actually evidence that the Christian myths are necessarily false.

Also your analogy with your body and a watermelon both being made of mostly water hardly fits this situation.

Yes, its true that the teachings of Jesus are very similar and in-line with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. It doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist (at least not in any formal or official capacity). But it does suggest that he was clearly favoring those types of views.

I personally feel that the case for Jesus having been a well-educated Mahayana Buddhist is a highly powerful case. The first thing you need to realize is that Mahayana Buddhism is just like all other spiritual religions and philosophies. Even the Mahayana Buddhists held slightly different views from each other (just as all the Abrahamic religions hold different views about the Abrhamic picture of God)

The core principles of how to behave in life and the moral values attributed to Jesus were not only closer to the views held by Mahayana Buddhism in general, but far more importantly is that the views attributed to Jesus were as different from those of the teaching of the Torah and the God of Abraham as night is from day.

And that second observation is, by far, that more important one.

~~~~~~

You need to understand where I'm coming from.

First off, I totally reject the teachings (and behaviors) attributed to "God" in the Torah as being "wise". IMHO, they are not only unwise, but in many cases they are outright ignorant, even disgusting.

So I come away from the Old Testament with absolute conviction that the God of Abraham is necessarily a false myth.

So now I look at "Christianity" and ask, what could have sparked such nonsense?

Well, clearly Jesus is nothing on his own. Without being placed upon the shoulders of the God of Abraham as the "Sacrificial Lamb" of that God, Jesus would be nothing.

Far more importantly the question then arises, "How could such rumors have gotten started?"

For a very long time this problem eluded me. The story of Jesus makes no sense to me as being made up entirely as pure fiction just off the top of someone's head as pure imagination.

Why bother having Jesus renounce things like the judging of others and the stoning of sinners to death when the Torah has God commanding people that its their duty to judge others and stone sinners to death to rid them of the evil among them?

Why bother having Jesus renounce the seeking of revenge as in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and instead teach people to forgive others and to turn the other cheek, etc.?

Why bother having Jesus point to the Torah and proclaim that it is written "Have I not said, ye are Gods?" when he himself was being accused of blaspheme for having said that he and the father are one?

These questions used to disturb me. I had no clue why someone would have Jesus make these proclamations if they were inventing this character from complete scratch. They clearly don't "FIT" in with the teachings of the God of Abraham. Therefore this suggests to me that some guy most likely did spark these rumors and it was clear that this man was teaching these things on a fairly regular basis.

I had no clue how to solve this problem. The idea of Jesus having been a totally fictional character made up from scratch made no sense to me. The idea that he could truly be the demigod son of the God of Abraham made even less sense to me.

Fortunately I decided to take an in-depth course into the history of Buddhism. This was totally unrelated to my thoughts on Christianity or Jesus. I just sat through the course taking in the history of Buddhism.

When we came to the history of Mahayana Buddhism everything fell right into place. The principles and moral teachings of Buddhism were a "Perfect Match" for what Jesus taught and stood for. It describes precisely how I would expect Jesus to act and behave if he were indeed a Mahayana Buddhist (or at least well-educated in that spiritual philosophy).

The light came on. I can clearly see where a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist could easy teach and act precisely the way these New Testament rumors have Jesus teaching and acting. I can also see quite vividly why he would have been so easily misunderstood by other Jews.

To me, it "solved the problem".

Jesus as a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist solves the problem perfectly. It explains precisely why Jesus renounced the teachings of the Torah and why he replaced those teachings with the things that he taught.

To my utter shock and amazement Mahayana Buddhism was actually flourishing at its peak precisely at the time in history when Jesus would have lived. At that point in history Mahayana Buddhism was the most popular form of Buddhism and its goal was to bring all the other forms of Buddhism into unity, and it was working very well in that respect.

Obviously you're not going to see the vivid connections here without fully understanding what Mahayana Buddhism was all about. But Jesus fits this scenario like a glove.

So for me it solves the problem of a historical Jesus, without having to resort to imagining a restricted God who has no control over his creation.

To continually try to tie Jesus back to the Old Testament as the demigod son of the God of Abraham consists of nothing more than making excuses for why that God was forced to be such a Jerk. And it also requires that we totally ignore the fact that Jesus did not even agree with the teachings that had been attributed to that God.

To try to support the Christian myth we must reduce God to being highly restricted in what he can do, and somehow accept that when Jesus came along this God had a MAJOR change in character.

I mean, this is the same God who supposedly flooded humans off the face of the planet at one point because they are sinners, and now he's changed his mind and character completely and instead of killing sinners he's going to sacrifice his only begotten son to pay for their sins?

How can anyone believe in the Christian scenario?

You'd have to believe in a totally unstable God. One moment he's solving the problem of sin by downing out the sinners, and the next moment he's sacrificing his son to pay for their sins because he "loves them so much".

At best, that's a totally inconsistent picture of an unstable and untrustworthy God.

At worst, it's a picture of a God who can't even make up his mind how he wants to handle sinners. If he changed his mind so dramatically once, maybe he'll change his mind again?

As an overall picture it simply can't be true, IMHO.

Therefore, a more rational explanation of who Jesus might have been is worthy of consideration, and for me that explanation came from my realization that if Jesus was thinking like a Mahayana Buddhist that explains EVERYTHING.

Moreover, it also brings to like why it's not necessary to believe everything that is written in the New Testament.

If you're looking at the New Testament, as the "Infallible inspired word of God", then you need to justify every little thing that might be said in it.

However, once you realize that it's just a bunch of superstitious rumors about the life and times of a mortal man, then you suddenly realize that there is no need to try to justify every little thing that it claims. It also becomes vividly apparent that even people who may have potentially known Jesus may have grossly misunderstood where he was coming from.

~~~~

The final absolute truth for me is the following:

I KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt that my questioning of these ancient myths has absolutely nothing to do with any desire to "reject" or "refuse to obey" any God.

Therefore any claims that suggest that to question or doubt these ancient myths is somehow a "sin against God" is clearly false. Yet it sure appears to me that these myths themselves continually hold the position that to not believe in them is somehow a direct rejection and refusal to embrace "God".

Since I KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is entirely false, then there can be no question in my mind that these scriptures are indeed lies.

No one is going to convince me that I'm "rejecting" or "refusing" to accept my creator. That is utter nonsense.

If I have a creator, and that creator is truly sane and righteous and then I have absolutely nothing to fear from rejecting these fables.

The only type of "God" who could follow up on the threats that these fables make toward "non-believers" would indeed necessarily be an insane and unrighteous "demon".

Rejection of God-myths does not equate to rejection of any truly righteous God that might actually exist.

As far as I'm concerned that is necessarily a core and inescapable truth.

Any God who would be mean toward me for not believing in ancient fables that appear to me to be utterly absurd, would necessarily need to be an unrighteous, unjust, and truly insane God to begin with.

In short I have absolutely nothing to fear from a truly righteous God.

The only God I would need to fear would indeed be an unrighteous demon.

So Christianity necessarily has to be false, IMHO.

It can't possibly be true because in order for it to be true our creator could neither be righteous nor sane. But that's a total violation of what this God is supposed to represent. Therefore this God-myth necessarily has to be false.

Jesus as the demigod son of an insane God makes no sense.

Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva does make sense.

[jimvansage]

Similarity does not prove identity.

Your main contention is that "Why would God do it THIS way instead of THAT way?"

Why not?

A possibility is no more or less likely
made from dust
virgin birth
What difference would it make?

What about sharks? Female sharks have been known to give birth in captivity having never experienced intercourse with male sharks.
Virgin Birth isn't even something unnatural - science has witnessed it in other creatures [link provided]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rth-2.html

Your opinion that Jesus "might" have been Buddhist is based on speculation.
My "opinion" that Jesus is God-man is based on the New Testament (and Old really).
One can provide alternatives to the Gospel accounts, but one cannot prove those speculations any more concretely than corroborating the New Testament.

[Divine Insight]

Similarity does not prove identity.

Of course it doesn't. I never claimed that it did.

I just point out the FACTS.

The is no similarity between the moral and behavioral principles that Jesus taught and the immoral behavioral principles that where claimed by the Torah to be the "Word of God".


Yet there is much similarity between the moral and behavioral principles that Jesus taught and the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism which was at its peak at that point in history.

Therefore I speak in terms reason not in terms of claiming to have proven anything.

I simply ask, "Which is more reasonable?", that Jesus was a misunderstood Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, or that he was the demigod son of a fabled God that he clearly didn't even agree with?

I simply chose the one that is more reasonable. (no proof required)

Your main contention is that "Why would God do it THIS way instead of THAT way?"

Why not?

Because this fabled God is supposed to be "all-wise".

I simply look at what the stories proclaim and conclude subjectively that the actions and behaviors attributed to this God are not anywhere near what I would personally considered to be remotely "wise".

Now you may say, "Well that's just your own subjective view". Well, fine. But this is supposed to be a faith-based religion. My faith is also quite "subjective". If I'm going to be asked to place my subjective faith into something that I subjectively view as being utterly absurd I think it's quite fair for me to reject it on grounds of my subjective views as well.

A religion that requires subjective faith is open to being rejected on subjective reasoning.

Moreover, I'm more than willing to take this position with any God that might actually be associated with these stories.

My concerns of the absurdities in these stories are genuine. And if this God actually exists shouldn't I be TRUTHFUL with this God and confess that I have serious genuine concerns that the picture I am seeing here is utterly absurd?

To do anything short of that would be to lie to this God. You're not suggesting that I should lie to this God are you?

I would be more than happy to take my complaint directly to this God.

For me it's extremely simple only one of two things could possibly come of that.

1. I'm right and this God truly is a jerk. (but then I'd be right, and God would truly be a jerk)

OR

2. My impression and picture of the biblical stories is complete WRONG after having considered it for over a half a century of adult life.

If the latter is true, and I've simply misunderstood the entire thing, then surely an rational and "just" God is going to be wise enough to recognize that what I have rejected was not the God himself, but rather a totally false and incorrect picture of Him.

If that's the case he should be well pleased that I did not accept that he was a jerk as these fables appear to make him out to be.

The bottom line in all of this is that the only way that this God could be a thread to me is if he truly is a jerk. But that would make me right, and God a jerk. Precisely a situation that we can't have.

A possibility is no more or less likely
made from dust
virgin birth
What difference would it make?

Well, this is only one tiny little detail in these fables, but it would make a lot of difference to me personally. Demigods being born of virgin women were commonplace in Mediterranean God myth. The Greek God of Zeus had demigod sons, as well as many other Mediterranean Gods.

Had Jesus just appeared out of nowhere would be far more impressive to me. But like I say, even changing that one tiny detail in these stories isn't going to change my mind at this point. Even if Jesus had just appeared out of nowhere he still taught against the teachings of the God of Abraham, so we'd still have those conflicts to consider.

What about sharks? Female sharks have been known to give birth in captivity having never experienced intercourse with male sharks.
Virgin Birth isn't even something unnatural - science has witnessed it in other creatures [link provided]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rth-2.html

Well, be careful now. If you start arguing that Virgin Births may simply be a rare but natural occurrences you start to bring up the possibility that Jesus would have simply been a natural accident (assuming of course that his mother was even a virgin). We don't really have any reason to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin woman anymore than we have reason to believe that God spoke from a cloud or that zombie saints who no one ever saw raised from their graves.

I personally don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin woman. If she had a husband (and supposedly she did), then that man was probably the father of Jesus as far as I'm concerned. I have no reason to believe every hearsay superstitious rumor that was written in the New Testament.

In fact, like I say, I can't see a genuinely all-wise creator merely copying from from the ideas of Greek mythology. Other Mediterranean mythologies had plenty of fables about demigods being born of virgin women. Where does God get his ideas? From writers of fictional Gods?

To me this is an extreme RED FLAG. Why would the "Real Creator" of all humanity stoop to using the same ideas that mortal men had been writing into their god-myths for centuries before the time of Jesus?

Doesn't this God have a creative mind of his own?

Your opinion that Jesus "might" have been Buddhist is based on speculation.
My "opinion" that Jesus is God-man is based on the New Testament (and Old really).
One can provide alternatives to the Gospel accounts, but one cannot prove those speculations any more concretely than corroborating the New Testament.

IMHO, the Gospel accounts of the New Testament are speculation. When I read it I see it as being nothing but pure superstitious speculation of these authors. They have the Torah (or Old Testament) in one hand and they are writing up the New Testament fables with their other hand desperately trying to make a case that Jesus was a "promised messiah". A case that the Jews themselves renounced as being utter nonsense.

I periodically re-read the biblical stories, just to see if there is any possible way that I could squeeze some sort of rational sense out of them. However the more I read them the more I'm convinced that they are indeed utterly hopeless. Not that I would even care to resurrect them at this point anyway. But still re-reading them only drives home my convictions that these fables are indeed nothing more than superstitious speculation (often times quite desperate speculation on the part of some of the authors)

They give all these speculative reasons why they feel that Jesus is the messiah, and after having done all of that they proclaim that God spoke from a cloud verifying that Jesus is indeed his Son. To me, that just reeks of the fact that they knew themselves that they didn't even have a convincing case. They had to resort to having God proclaim it from the clouds. To me that's a sign or desperation of a writer who knows full well that he hasn't made a convincing case and has to finally resort to pretending that God himself has proclaimed it to be true, thus removing any and all doubt.

For me, that just had the opposite affect and revealed to me that they basically know that their speculation has no grounds.

~~~~

How many times do I need to point out that the Jews evidently didn't hear any God speaking from any cloud. They also evidently didn't see or hear about Jesus going around the countryside healing all manner of sickness and raising people from the dead. I'm sure they never saw him walk on water, or raise from the dead. And they evidently didn't even see the multitude of zombie saints that rose from their graves and supposedly went into the Holy City of Jerusalem specifically to "show themselves to the people there".

How could the Jews not believe these superstitious rumors if there was any truth to them?

I would expect the Jews to be the most profound and dedicated "Christians" to walk the face of the planet if all the claims made by the authors of the New Testament had actually happened.

~~~~

So for me, Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is simply more reasonable.

To believe that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Abraham is not reasonable, IMHO.

Never-mind any "proof".

There is no "proof" one way or the other. It's a faith-based religion remember?

IMHO, it's more reasonable to speculate that Jesus was a Mayahana Buddhist Bodhisattva than to speculate that he was a demigod son of the God of Abraham.

For me personally, trying to support the speculation that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Abraham is simply a lost cause. I certainly couldn't make a compelling case for that if my life depended upon it.

And clearly the Jews don't buy it either and this is based on their original religion!

If they don't believe it, no one should.

[jimvansage]

If Jesus is a myth because his biography was allegedly written 40 years after his death, then Siddhartha Buddha must be a myth, because his biography was written 600 years after the latest possible date attributed to his death.

You're still holding Jesus to a standard no other historical figure, whether he founded a religion or not, is not held to.
There's no reason for anyone to view your opinion as all-wise or superior to the opinion of the biblical God as to how redemption had to play out.

If the virgin birth is a natural occurrence, it is not unreasonable, and it does not mean that God did not provide for it providentially rather than miraculously.

You keep calling Jesus a demigod when the New Testament says He is equal with God (Philippians 2:5ff) and states that He is God who took on humanity/human nature as well.
100% God (spiritually) and 100% man (physically) is not a demigod.

[Divine Insight]

If Jesus is a myth because his biography was allegedly written 40 years after his death, then Siddhartha Buddha must be a myth, because his biography was written 600 years after the latest possible date attributed to his death.

This is totally irrelevant. The stories of Siddhartha Gautama may very well be entirely made up stories. Who cares?

No one is claiming that Siddhartha was God, or that he was sent by God or spoke on behalf of God or anything else like that.

Moreover I'm not suggesting that Buddhism is "right" and Christianity is "wrong". Nor am I suggesting that anyone should become a Buddhist. Although I do hold that it wouldn't hurt them to learn about it. Especially the entire history of Buddhism including Mahayana Buddhism, as well as other forms.

My only point is that the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhist was at its peak at the point in history when Jesus supposedly lived, and that the teachings of Jesus (even according to the New Testament Gospels) are far more in-line with the principles of Buddhism, and totally contradictory to the teachings of the Torah.

So both religions can be totally false and perhaps the Atheists are right. But that still doesn't change the fact that it makes more sense that Jesus was coming from a philosophical mindset of Mahayana Buddhist rather than from the mindset that should be expected of a demigod who is the son of the God of Abraham. (and yes I'll address your claims later about Jesus actually being God and not mere his "son" which opens up a whole new can of worms)

You're still holding Jesus to a standard no other historical figure, whether he founded a religion or not, is not held to.

That's right.

No other historical figure is being held up as "God" or as the "Only begotten Son of God".

No other historical figure is being held up as the "sacrificial lamb" who was sent by God to pay for the sins of men.

No other historical figure is being held up as a reason why a jealous God will condemn people if they fail to merely believe in him,...

Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Has anyone ever suggested to you that if you don't believe in Siddhartha Gautama God will damn you to eternal damnation?

Who cares whether Siddhartha Gautama was a real person? I sure don't.

In fact, I do question that. I suspect the same things about Siddhartha as I do about Jesus. Some guy may have lived a life that sparked the stories of Siddhartha. Stories that where then later embellished and expanded upon.

So in that sense I am holding Siddhartha Gautama to the same standards as I'm holding Jesus. The only difference is that no one is threatening that God will condemn me for not believing in Siddhartha.

There's no reason for anyone to view your opinion as all-wise or superior to the opinion of the biblical God as to how redemption had to play out.

Sure there are. There are plenty of sound reasons.

Moreover, there you go again suggesting that redemption had to play out a certain way that even God himself had no control over. You had mentioned this before when you suggested that maybe God has no choice in the matter. But that's a direct violation of this God's supposed "Perfect Omnipotence".

I'd be glad to debate that specific issue head-on.

We can look at it from the beginning with God's "decision" to curse Eve with sorrowful conception and childbirth for having supposedly "fallen from grace", all the way up to the Crucifixion of Jesus as a "sacrifice" being made by God.

These are profound issues.

We can seriously ask whether God had a "choice" in all these decisions he made, or whether he had no choice on "how redemption had to play out".

These issues have been well-covered by atheists already.

A God who has no choice is limited and not omnipotent. (end of story - the supposedly omnipotent God of the Bible is no longer Omnipotent)

Yet sound arguments can be made that a God who is unlimited but made the choices described in the Bible would be a sick demented God.

In this case, you apologetic argument for this God is to suggest that he's not all powerful and that's his "excuse" for behaving in utterly ignorant ways.

And that's supposed to support these myths?

I don't see how. In order to "save" these myths you need to toss out this God's supposed omnipotence right off the bat just in a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

God couldn't help it. He had no other choice.

That's not an impressive apologetic argument as far as I'm concerned.

If the virgin birth is a natural occurrence, it is not unreasonable, and it does not mean that God did not provide for it providentially rather than miraculously.

To me, arguing about a supposed virgin birth is a waste of everyone's times. How could the authors of the New Testament know whether Mary was a virgin or not anyway? That kind of stuff is clearly superstitious speculation on their part.

My main point is that the concept of gods having sons born to virgin mortal women is a very common theme in many Mediterranean religious myths that far predate Jesus. So these stories of Jesus aren't even creative or out of the norm, it's just more of the same superstitions.

You keep calling Jesus a demigod when the New Testament says He is equal with God (Philippians 2:5ff) and states that He is God who took on humanity/human nature as well.
100% God (spiritually) and 100% man (physically) is not a demigod.

That's what the Christians like to claim, but there are extreme problems with this.

First off, if Jesus was 100% God, then the idea that he never sinned would be totally unimpressive. Sin in this religion is truly nothing more than disobedience of God's directives and commandments. Well, if Jesus was God then why would he want to disobey his own directives and commandments. That would be utterly stupid. So to not sin would not have been anything special for Jesus since all he would need to do is what he prefers to do and avoid what he doesn't like.

Secondly if Jesus was 100% God then what sense would it make for God to speak from a cloud saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I'm well-pleased". So what would that be all about? God is well-pleased with himself?

Jesus was also said to pray a lot. If Jesus was God why would he need to pray? And who would he be praying to?

I call Jesus a demigod because he was supposedly born of a virgin mortal woman who had been impregnated by a God. That's the definition of a demigod. A deity that is half human, half God.

In fact, if all humans are spiritual souls that every human is 100% spiritual and 100% physical. Although in truth, they would actually be 100% spiritual and 0% physical since their physical body would merely be a temporary vehicle that their spirit is using.

When you get in your car are you 100% human and 100% car? No. You're still 100% human who is just temporarily inhabiting a car.

In fact, this is the view of the Buddhists. The body is like a car. We are all 100% spiritual beings. It's the body that has no value.

So your analogy doesn't even work because you say:

"100% God (spiritually) and 100% man (physically)"

If you view men as 100% physical then you'd be denying the spiritual essence of men altogether. Man as a 100% physical being is a secular atheistic view.

~~~~~

And getting back to your main concern that you keep bringing up:

You're still holding Jesus to a standard no other historical figure, whether he founded a religion or not, is not held to.

And you're still attempting to proclaim that Jesus was 100% God and that no other historical figure can make that claim.

Well, if you're going to hold Jesus up to a standard that is so extremely far above any other supposedly mere mortal historical figure, then should you expect that a totally different set of standards should be applied to Jesus?

After all, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

To hold Jesus up as being the only incarnation of God, and then to scream "foul" when people demand extraordinary evidence for that over and above any other historical figure, is quite frankly, hypocritical.

The claims made about Jesus are extraordinary and therefore they demand extraordinary standards.

No one ever claimed that Siddhartha Gautama was a unique and special incarnation of God and that whosoever not believeth in him shall be damned.

But the Christians (at least the authors of the New Testament) are making these kinds of outrageous extraordinary claims.

So yes, these fables should indeed be questioned to standards that far exceed any standards applied to any other historical figures.

Absolutely.

[McCulloch]

What about sharks? Female sharks have been known to give birth in captivity having never experienced intercourse with male sharks.
Virgin Birth isn't even something unnatural - science has witnessed it in other creatures

Not in any mammals or birds. Besides, the whole point of the virgin birth story is that it is a miracle, an impossible event which has taken place. Right?

If Jesus is a myth because his biography was allegedly written 40 years after his death, then Siddhartha Buddha must be a myth, because his biography was written 600 years after the latest possible date attributed to his death.

Yes, you have that right. Jesus may or may not have existed, I don't know. However, the only record we have of his life were written decades after his death by people with the express purpose of promoting the new religion of his messiahship.

You're still holding Jesus to a standard no other historical figure, whether he founded a religion or not, is not held to.

No, we are not. Which other historical figures do you have in mind? Caesar? Alexander the Great? Herod? King Arthur? King Wu of Zhou? Cyrus the Great? Plato? Qin Shi Huang? Attila the Hun?

[jimvansage]

"And you're still attempting to proclaim that Jesus was 100% God and that no other historical figure can make that claim"

No other figure in history has made that claim (not to be a demigod, but God incarnate - God (spirit) got in a vehicle (human body))

I didn't say God had no other choice, but as a perfect being He would choose what was best for all mankind (disregarding what was "best" for Himself)
one may find it sick or demented in their own opinion, but what alternatives were there? How could we know any other alternative would be sufficient?

There's nothing in our understanding that says that a spirit (God) cannot exist in 3 different personalities or manifestations. As difficult as the Godhead or "trinity" is to understand, you can't reduce to absurdity what is outside our realm of experience

[Divine Insight]

No other figure in history has made that claim (not to be a demigod, but God incarnate - God (spirit) got in a vehicle (human body))

All Buddhist claim to be God incarnate. It's just that they recognize that this is true of all humans, not just a particular individual.

And even according to the gospels that was Jesus stance as well. When he claim to be one with the father and was charged with blapheme he quickly pointed to the Torah and said, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"?

So clearly, even according to the gospels Jesus wasn't claiming to be anything special. He was clearly taking the same position that any Mahayana Buddhist would take. Nothing special or unique there.

I didn't say God had no other choice, but as a perfect being He would choose what was best for all mankind (disregarding what was "best" for Himself)
one may find it sick or demented in their own opinion, but what alternatives were there? How could we know any other alternative would be sufficient?

The Biblical story begins as a story of a "Fall from Grace". Not as a situation where God has created humans who cannot possibly obey him.

Actually if the story had began that way it would have had some potential. But it didn't. That's not the biblical story.

God actually "punished" Adam and Eve for their "Fall from Grace". This forces the issue. This demands that the fall from grace was their fault and not an innate property of God's creation.

Everything goes down hill from there in these fables. God continually tries to correct the problem using violence and punishments and his methods never work. He even even drowns all of humanity out a during the Great Flood save for a handful of individuals.

Then much later (according to the Christian rumors) he supposedly sends his "Only begotten Son" to pay for the sinful nature of mankind.

The problem with these fables is that they are not consistent with a God who supposedly knew all this stuff ahead of time. If he knew that he was going to sacrifice his son to pay for the sins of man, then he should have done it right there in the garden of Eden to give Adam and Eve a chance to repent.

He most certainly should have done it before the Great Flood.

To have a God flood out his creation at one point in time and then turn around and offer his son as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of men makes no sense.

In short, the story as stands makes no sense.

All you're doing is proclaiming. "Well what if there is more to they story than the biblical stories reveal?"

But that's just a confession that the fables themselves make no sense as is.

The bottom line should be apparent:

If you have a supposedly all-intelligent God he should be intelligent enough to make things clear in any scriptures he has people write on his behalf.

The mere fact that this never happened, is proof positive that there is no all-intelligent God behind these absurd fables.

There's nothing in our understanding that says that a spirit (God) cannot exist in 3 different personalities or manifestations. As difficult as the Godhead or "trinity" is to understand, you can't reduce to absurdity what is outside our realm of experience

That's totally irrelevant. I couldn't care if God is a flying spaghetti monster. The point is that God is supposed to be intelligent, and the biblical fables do not portray an intelligent God.

You can't have an intelligent God inspiring the writing of ignorant fables and even demanding that people believe in these fables lest he will condemn them.

Either God is intelligent or he isn't.

The Biblical fables do not portray an intelligent God. On the contrary, what they actually reveal are truly ignorant ancient superstitions.

It's that simple.

Whether God could exist as a schizophrenic trinity or whatever, is totally irrelevant. These fables claim that God is intelligent, but they portray him as being totally ignorant and stupid. Both of these things can't be simultaneously true.

The kinds of arguments that you give to support these ancient myths could be made for the Greek Mythologies.

"Maybe Zeus and company really are the way the Greeks described them and we just are too limited in our ability to comprehend things to fully understand how this can be so."

That's where you're at. You're at a point where your arguments could apply to any myths whatsoever.

You're not arguing for "The Biblical Picture" of God at this point. You're attempting to argue that maybe God is somehow different from how the Bible describes him to be and we just don't have the ability to comprehend that.

May as well choose to believe in Greek Mythology if you're going to do that because you can apply the very same principle to those myths as well.

[jimvansage]

Put yourself in a scenario:
If you act now, you could save 8 people
but if you wait and prepare, you could save 5,000 (and more)

Only eight were saved in the days of Noah
After Pentecost 5,000 Jews accepted Christ as their savior
It's simple mathematics

Noah could have claimed that Jesus was coming, and all but 8 souls would have rejected Him (they rejected God's word spoken through Noah)
Learn what this means: "the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Eph. 1:10)

The Babylonian empire rose up, and synagogues were built
The Medo-Persian empire rose up, and they brought a law which could not be changed
The Macedonian empire rose up, and they provided a common language for the whole world (Koine Greek, which the New Testament was written in)
The Roman empire united the known world and gave roads.
(compare these four kingdoms to the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 2)

In the first century
they understood law
they understood a common language
there were synagogues in every city to preach Jesus to
and roads by which to travel to spread the Good News

I can't prove God's providence (Philemon verse 15: "perhaps")
but Christianity emerged when it emerged for a reason
If God chose the time to set it up

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 39:

...
I can't prove God's providence (Philemon verse 15: "perhaps")

You said a mouthful.

but Christianity emerged when it emerged for a reason

What do you propose was this reason?

If God chose the time to set it up

That "if" is bigger'n Stone Mountain.