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]

Are you ready to accept that it might not be a fable then?

There is nothing that can be used to salvage the Hebrew fables.

They are as broken as broken can be.

Besides appealing to Romans is a bit belated for a story that needed help way back in Genesis chapter 3 don't you think?

[jimvansage]

not when Paul explains that the nature of much of the OT Law was a "mystery"
a mystery once concealed, now revealed - In Christ and His New Covenant/Testament

Again, it would only be a "bit late" if one doesn't take the Bible as a whole and assumes there is no harmony to be found in it

[McCulloch]

I'm willing to consider any evidence that might be brought to my attention that anyone thinks would be detrimental to the case. All you have done so far in this post is blame God when His children go astray. Denying people free will would be as objectionable as rape, and you know as well as I do that you can't always blame the Father for the lawlessness of his children. Sin is a product of human desire (James 1:14, 15), a squandering of the gift of free will.

I find that free will is an inadequate answer to the problem of evil. Evil exists, according to this explanation, because in order to eliminate evil, free will must be destroyed, inhibited or suppressed. Implied in this defense, is the idea that free will itself must have a greater value in terms of goodness than the evils that would be vanquished by eliminating it. This then leads to the paradox of the Christian heaven.

Is there free will in heaven?

If yes then is there sin in heaven? If there is sin in heaven, how is it different from earth? If there is free will in heaven but no sin, then free will and sin are compatible and the justification for allowing evil has been removed.

If there is no free will in heaven, then free will cannot be of such a great value, enough to justify the existence of sin.

Just because I accept a view does not mean I accept it blindly.
Biblical faith is equated with knowledge (John 6:69)

The writer of John claims that the apostles have both come to believe and to know, that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Unlike them, I have no such knowledge. If you claim to know this, please verify and validate that this is true knowledge.

We are not to blindly believe everything we hear, see, read (1 John 4:1).

Yes, there are many false prophets. How do we know that the writer of 1 John is not false himself? Luke? Paul?

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21)

I love that verse. It is one of the most pithy descriptions of the scientific method I know. Ironically, it is also the reason I have left Christianity. I cannot prove the truth of the Bible.

[jimvansage]

Free will in heaven? Don't know if I have a definite answer to that

I understand your reasoning - if free will is not eternal, then free will is not worthwhile, or it doesn't have the same value as eternal things - God, love, life, etc.
To choose the eternal over the temporal, or to have the ability to choose is not for the sake of the choice itself or the ability to choose - free will would just be the instrument by which one chooses either spiritual or physical.
Some say there will be no faith in heaven (when God is in sight - 1 Cor. 13:13 love is greatest b/c only love is eternal, faith is made sight and hope received in the end) - that does not mean faith is unimportant - one could say the same about repentance, confession, baptism, etc.

If free will is eternal, which it would seem to be if we define God as both a personal being and a free moral agent (though always making the right decision, therefore perfect). The difference between our free will and God's would be knowledge, our own being a drop in the bucket compared to omniscience. Omniscience does not mean God has a choice, in fact, I would think it means that God would know the infinite possibilities that could follow from each decision He makes and is able to make the best decision with the best outcome for those who do not reject Him (Romans 8:8).

If there is indeed free will in heaven, it will not be the same as it is in this world.
The physical body will be changed (1 Cor. 15 - resurrection chapter) and if one receives the fullness of God's blessings in heaven, there would be nothing one would desire for (sin is a product of desire, or lust - James 1:14-15).

How can one have free will and heaven and not suffer condemnation? I don't know.
There might very well be free will, yet no sin
if one would rely on the knowledge of God in His Presence,
why wouldn't one ask for His counsel before making any decision?

Before I respond to the other matters, do you feel you have "disproven" the Bible?
Has science "disproven" the Bible in your opinion?

[Divine Insight]

Free will in heaven? Don't know if I have a definite answer to that

For me the answer is crystal clear. There cannot be any free will in heaven for the very simple fact that the Bible proclaims that "in heaven only God's will be done".

If only God's will is done, how could anyone else have any independent free will? If their free will was not in perfect alignment with God's will that would be a problem. So independent free will cannot exist in heaven if only God's will be done in heaven.

So, for me, that's a given biblical proclamation.

Before I respond to the other matters, do you feel you have "disproven" the Bible?

I realized that you had posed this question to McCulloch, but I'd like to offer my reply as well.

Yes, I do feel that I have "disproved" the Bible beyond any reasonable doubt.

Mainly based on what I consider to be obvious self-contradictions within the stories themselves, as well as what I see as contradictions to the very character that this God is supposed to have.

Like in my observations above concerning Free Will.

If God merely wants us to freely forfeit our free will and adhere only to his will, then why not just say so?

Why create a pretentious situation where mankind is said to have 'fallen from grace" from God, and needs to get back in good with God, and that God will condemn everyone to eternal damnation if they fail to do this.

Why doesn't God just say, "Here, I'll give you an environment where you can have free will of your own. Once you have had a taste of Free Will I'll give you a choice: You can either freely give up your Free Will, and I will allow you to become part of my paradise where only my will is done. Or you can decide that you aren't interested in which case I'll have to let you just die when you die because I don't want to be bothered maintaining people who aren't willing to do my will.

Why the need to threaten to condemn people to eternal suffering if they aren't interested in God's offer of a supposed paradise where they can have no free will?

Why even bother making out like people who aren't interested are necessarily "Evil People"?

That whole scenario doesn't even make any sense to me.

So I dismiss the Bible (and feel that it has been "disproved") simply because it doesn't make any sense, IMHO. It's inconsistent in both it's plot and in the character that it claims its God should have.

Since God is supposed to be consistent, benevolent, and trustworthy, and the stories don't support that consistency, isn't it safe to assume that they have disproved themselves via their own blatant self-contradictions?

Has science "disproven" the Bible in your opinion?

I don't feel that I need to disprove the Bible on scientific grounds. The Bible's own self-inconsistencies and violation of the character traits that it assigns to its own God are more than sufficient to show that it has to be false.

Disproving the Bible using science is far more difficult, because there is so much "wiggle room" in Biblical interpretations.

I believe that the scientific knowledge that the universe is about 14 billion years old is most likely true. I believe that the scientific knowledge that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years is true. I believe that life evolved on Earth from simply cells to sentient beings like ourselves. I believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, lived, died, and even ate each other, for about 300 million yeas when no humans were even present on Earth yet.

I believe that we have indeed evolved from lesser primates and that we are very closely related to the Great Apes.

Does any of that "disprove" the Bible?

Well, I would argue that scientific knowledge certainly shows that death, disease, a dog-eat-dog world, and all manner of imperfections certainly existed prior to the appearance of humans on Earth.

Therefore, this does seem to "disprove" the Biblical claim that mankind's fall from grace may have had anything at all to do with these things.

So in that sense, "Yes", I personally believe that science has indeed disproved the Biblical claims that mankind is somehow responsible for 'evil' in the world.

But like I say, I don't even feel a need to resort to that scientific proof. Because for me, the Biblical fables shoot themselves in their own foot a thousand times over. They already have proven to me that they are self-inconsistent and thus clearly false.

No need to even bring scientific knowledge into the picture at all.

[jimvansage]

What Bible are you reading?
"in heaven only God's will be done" isn't in any translation I'm aware of
I think you can infer that if it's true that there will be no sin in heaven.

I think we're overlooking the fact that knowledge has a lot to do with sin.
If one as a young adult knew the severity of sin (from a biblical perspective) and the harm it might cause oneself and others, one would not act in such a way.
So having a better knowledge and even understanding of the will of God, or what He would choose in any given situation, or simply what we would choose if we better understood the potential outcomes of our decisions, then they would still be our choice.

Knowing that milk will be delivered to my house on Friday might influence my decision whether to have cereal for breakfast or not, but it's still my choice.
Either I'm tired or that analogy is lackluster or both.
But in the end all of this is speculation, and speculation doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Lack of free will in heaven doesn't undermine it's importance in this life.

I think we see eye to eye here:
The Bible is not a science textbook and shouldn't be held to the standard of one.
I disagree on the truth of some of the claims science makes (I believe that the scientific knowledge that the universe is about 14 billion years old is most likely true. I believe that the scientific knowledge that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years is true. I believe that life evolved on Earth from simply cells to sentient beings like ourselves. I believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, lived, died, and even ate each other, for about 300 million yeas when no humans were even present on Earth yet) but it's not the point.

But I don't believe the Bible has contradictions.
Free will in heaven or not doesn't force a contradiction.
Whether one accepts it as truth or not, the biblical system is a rational system
it may conflict with other interpretations of our universe
but taken as a whole on it's own merit, it is a unified message

I also feel we're getting out of the realm or "Is Jesus the Son of God" into "Is Christianity a rational system?", or subtopics "Is the concept of biblical God rational?" or "Is biblical theology rational?" which I would be more than willing to address appropriately in a specific context, but "free will in heaven" does not decide whether Jesus lived or not or whether he was Deity or not.

[Nickman]

What Bible are you reading?
"in heaven only God's will be done" isn't in any translation I'm aware of
I think you can infer that if it's true that there will be no sin in heaven.

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,

The power, and the glory,

For ever and ever.

Amen.

[Divine Insight]

I also feel we're getting out of the realm or "Is Jesus the Son of God" into "Is Christianity a rational system?"

From my perspective those are strongly related questions. After all why should we even consider that Jesus is the Son of God if the question of whether the religion is even rational is still hanging open?

On of the reason that I'm totally convinced that Jesus cannot possible be the demigod son of the God of Abraham is precisely because I've already ruled out the fables of the God of Abraham.

This is one reason that by the time I get to the New Testament, I need to look for other explanation of who Jesus might have been. Assuming that there is any substance to the rumors about Jesus at all, even remotely as superstitions.

Where they superstitions about a "real person"? Or where they totally fictional superstitions made up completely out of the minds of men?

I tend to believe that some guy actually lived and was the cause or spark of these rumors. But that's no reason for me to accept the truth of the rumors verbatim.

But I don't believe the Bible has contradictions.

Well, for me when it comes to Christianity there are two main huge undeniable contradictions, IMHO.

1. The contradiction between the Great Flood and Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb of God.

We're told that this God is a dependable trustworthy God who is stable and unchanging in his character and in his intent and plans with mankind.

Yet look at what Christianity is asking us to believe:

We are supposed to believe that at one point this God deals with the sins of men by flooding out the planet and killing all the sinners. Then in the New Testament this God has what could only be described as a "major change of heart" and instead of flooding the sinning men out, he sends his only begotten son as a sacrificial lamb to "pay" for the sins of men.

I don't see how anyone can not see that as a blatant contradiction of what this God supposedly stands for. At one point he God so hates the world that he floods out all of mankind, the next moment God so loves the world that he gave his only begotten son to save it?

That is what I see as a completely 100% about-face.

Where is there any dependable consistency in that?

If that's not a blatant contradiction concerning a God who's supposed to have a master plan I don't know what is.

~~~~~

The second contradiction concerning this same topic is the following:

2. Why weren't Adam and Eve given a chance to repent their sins, ask to be forgiven, and offered salvation or damnation based on their choice?

Is that God's plan for mankind or not?

Why have Adam and Eve go off multiplying and creating all of humanity until God has to drown most of them and start all over again with Noah's family, only to finally offer salvation through Jesus basically eons later?

From my perspective this is not a God who has a consistent plan in mind.

Jesus is way too late in this story to even fit in at all in terms of being a way to salvation between humans and God.

~~~~

Then when we get to Jesus what do we see?

The Promised Messiah Associated with King David?

Well, first off he's being proclaimed to be the "promised Messiah" associated with King David. But that messiah was supposed to be handed the throne of King David by God himself. Jesus never even became king of Jews in any capacity. So he most certainly doesn't fit into any of that prophecy. Yet that's the lineage that the authors of the New Testament are so anxious to make.

I agree with the Jews on this issue. It's not workable period. Jesus did not fulfill that prophecy.

What is the Wages of Sin?

Is the wages of sin being beaten and nailed to a pole?

No. So what would this terrible crucifixion have to do with paying for sin anyway?

The Wages of Sin is Death

According to the Old Testament the wages of sin is death. And not just physical death, but spiritual death. Total complete ceasing to exist.

In fact, the saints and good people supposedly go to heaven after their physical body dies. They are then risen as spirit and ascend to heaven.

So what happened to Jesus? Did he die spiritually when his body died and was never heard from again? No. A mere 3 days after his body died he was supposedly risen from the dead and from there he ascended to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God and become the kings of kings and lord of lords.

Is that the "wages of sin"?

No, not all. On the contrary that's what happens to GOOD people.

So it's a blatant contradiction to even say that Jesus paid the wages of sin for anyone.

If the wages of sin is spiritual death, then all Jesus had to do was die spiritually. And it wouldn't have even needed to be a violent or painful death. He could have merely died of old age or from natural causes. Certainly it shouldn't have been required that he die at the hands of men who are themselves sinners.

And then after he died no one should have ever heard from him again, if he was paying the wages of sin for all mankind. He can't be popping back to life three days later saying "Ok I did it! I paid the wages of sin for all mankind. Now I'm heading back off to heaven to be the king of kings and lord of lords."

That makes no sense at all in light of the overall mythology.

~~~~

So for me the question of whether Jesus was the demigod Son of the God of Abraham isn't even a meaningful question.

The real question is, "Who sparked these superstitious rumors? And what was he really trying to say?"

My answer to that is that "Jesus" was actually a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, and he was basically rejecting the immoral teachings of the Torah (just as the Gospels clearly show), and trying to replace them with the higher morality of Mahayana Buddhism.

Here, look at the origins of the Beatitudes that Jesus taught. These were being taught by the Buddhists for centuries before Jesus was ever born.

The Beatitudes of Christ

[McCulloch]

Free will in heaven? Don't know if I have a definite answer to that

I understand your reasoning - if free will is not eternal, then free will is not worthwhile, or it doesn't have the same value as eternal things - God, love, life, etc.
To choose the eternal over the temporal, or to have the ability to choose is not for the sake of the choice itself or the ability to choose - free will would just be the instrument by which one chooses either spiritual or physical.
Some say there will be no faith in heaven (when God is in sight - 1 Cor. 13:13 love is greatest b/c only love is eternal, faith is made sight and hope received in the end) - that does not mean faith is unimportant - one could say the same about repentance, confession, baptism, etc.

If free will is eternal, which it would seem to be if we define God as both a personal being and a free moral agent (though always making the right decision, therefore perfect). The difference between our free will and God's would be knowledge, our own being a drop in the bucket compared to omniscience. Omniscience does not mean God has a choice, in fact, I would think it means that God would know the infinite possibilities that could follow from each decision He makes and is able to make the best decision with the best outcome for those who do not reject Him (Romans 8:8).

How can it be said that God has free will if he always makes the right decision. God cannot be free to decide to do other that the most optimal best choice. Given omniscience, he knows the best choice, and being omnipotent, he is able to do it.

If there is indeed free will in heaven, it will not be the same as it is in this world.
The physical body will be changed (1 Cor. 15 - resurrection chapter) and if one receives the fullness of God's blessings in heaven, there would be nothing one would desire for (sin is a product of desire, or lust - James 1:14-15).

How can one have free will and heaven and not suffer condemnation? I don't know.
There might very well be free will, yet no sin
if one would rely on the knowledge of God in His Presence,
why wouldn't one ask for His counsel before making any decision?

If the possibility of sin is zero, how can one's will be said to be free?

Before I respond to the other matters, do you feel you have "disproven" the Bible?
Has science "disproven" the Bible in your opinion?

In my opinion, the assertions made by the writers of the Bible cannot be relied upon to be true. Some things in the Bible are certainly true and insightful, or the book would have been thrown into the dustbin centuries ago. Some things claimed by various Biblical writers are false. Christian interpreters usually either metamophize those passages or deny science.

[PREEST]

No, it's impossible, because they are just stories in a book and there is not one single shred of evidence for god.