Would Jesus have claimed it without explaining it?

[Elijah John]

The Evangelist John has Jesus telling us that God so loved the world that he sent him (God's "only begotten son" presumably Jesus himself) so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For debate, does this sound like something the teacher of the Lord's Prayer would say? Remember, he taught us to call God "Father".

If the key word here is "begotten" and if Jesus actually claimed to have been God's only begotten son, wouldn't he have explained the difference between a "begotten vs. an adopted Son of God?

How likely is it that the word "begotten" is a theological insertion by the Evangelist John, and not something Jesus actually said?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

And the well-taught little boy in me recalls:
Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets will arise and mislead many." Henry viii was awarded the title Fidei Defensor for his staunch defence of R.C. articles some time before he killed two of his wives and invented the Church of England. I know that Judas can proclaim God because God works in mysterious ways. I think man works in even more mysterious ways to justify his interpretations.

Right back at ya. Skeptics might even be the most mysterious of all to justify their interpretation.


Luke 22:67
"If You are the Christ, tell us." But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe

Job 21:15
'Who is the Almighty, that we should serve Him, And what would we gain if we entreat Him?'

Kings 18:21
Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.


Luke 24:11
But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.


John 3:11
"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.

John 4:48
So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe."

John 6:64
"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

James 1:6
But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.

Good people demonstrate love. When Jesus and Muhammad intervened in the daily transactions of human love and kindness we had people burned and tortured, stoned and beheaded to the tune of Te deum laudamus or simply Allahu Akbar. Go well.

Does the parent who smacks the child’s hand who is about to touch the hot stove love his child?

Is it a bad person who protects and keeps enemies and evil people away from his family?

Many accuse God Himself of being evil . . .

Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God " They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
That seems to be a common topic on forums like these and yet is that interpretation correct? Scripture offers some response and yet the skeptics dismiss those as well . . .

They did not destroy the peoples as the Lord had commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood. (Psalm 106:34-38)


The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. (Is 57:1)


Human beings, religious and non have done evil. If I watch the movie, The Silent Lamb and take it as a suspenseful scary movie I think the director intended it to be and someone else takes it as a sign or message to slice up human beings, do we blame the movie? From the beginning of time people have used just about any reason to justify their evil actions. You selectively focus on those who have given their religion as their defense.

[marco]

Luke 22:67
"If You are the Christ, tell us." But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe

The answer is an evasive conditional sentence which does not serve as "YES". Their predicted disbelief does not indicate an affirmation on Christ's part. Other versions use Messiah, not the Christ. Had communication been imperative then a simple "yes" would have stopped the present discussion. Evidence from the OT is not evidence but guesswork and ambitious exegesis.

Does the parent who smacks the child’s hand who is about to touch the hot stove love his child?

Well no. The parent pulls the child away and gives him or her a hug. Why on earth smack? But yes, that does seem to be God's first action.

[quote="RightReason"

If I watch the movie, The Silent Lamb and take it as a suspenseful scary movie I think the director intended it to be and someone else takes it as a sign or message to slice up human beings, do we blame the movie? From the beginning of time people have used just about any reason to justify their evil actions. You selectively focus on those who have given their religion as their defense.

I'm not sure that The Silence of the Lambs inspires people to behave righteously while burning others. The condemnation given to heretics in the Bible encourages people to take action against those seen as God's enemies. Same applies to Allah's enemies - the bad people who don't believe Allah is good and merciful and lives among green couches.

In summary, Jesus did not say: "I am God". Others said it for him. He constantly affirmed God was working through him, that any power he had came from God. He may well have seen himself as a messiah, a messenger spreading the good news. We put words in his mouth when we deify him, and shatter monotheism.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Luke 22:67
"If You are the Christ, tell us." But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe

The answer is an evasive conditional sentence which does not serve as "YES". Their predicted disbelief does not indicate an affirmation on Christ's part. Other versions use Messiah, not the Christ. Had communication been imperative then a simple "yes" would have stopped the present discussion. Evidence from the OT is not evidence but guesswork and ambitious exegesis.

That’s how you see it, but just like Jesus predicted, some question Him even when He is direct. May clamor for signs and miracles and when He provides such, it still isn’t enough. You think if He would have said, yes at that moment to those who asked if He was the Christ, they would have believed Him? That’s cute.

RightReason wrote:


Does the parent who smacks the child’s hand who is about to touch the hot stove love his child?


Well no. The parent pulls the child away and gives him or her a hug. Why on earth smack? But yes, that does seem to be God's first action.

Are you a parent? Reason/lecture/explanation does not typically work with small children. Sometimes a smack/hit is the most efficient way to save a child from immediate harm from something worse and to help them understand the importance of the message you are trying to send. If a room was on fire in my home, I wouldn’t think twice about throwing my child out the window to save him from flames, even if he might get bruised in the process.

I'm not sure that The Silence of the Lambs inspires people to behave righteously while burning others. The condemnation given to heretics in the Bible encourages people to take action against those seen as God's enemies.

Yes, just like I would take action against some bad influence that has no qualms about putting my child at risk. This makes sense. Unfortunately people were choosing to use force/violence when such was not necessary, but feeling justified in doing so. Both religious and non religious are guilty of such mistakes.

In summary, Jesus did not say: "I am God". Others said it for him. He constantly affirmed God was working through him, that any power he had came from God. He may well have seen himself as a messiah, a messenger spreading the good news. We put words in his mouth when we deify him, and shatter monotheism.

Did we put words in His mouth, or is what Jesus said once again evident by the reaction of those who actually heard His words?

Some excerpts from an article https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... -to-be-god. See full article for full explanation/understanding.


*************


Unless your view of the ancient world comes from Monty Python, people didn't carry stones in their pockets just itching to stone someone. The charge of blasphemy was serious, and stoning was against Roman law. Therefore, the reaction of Jesus' original hearers provides a solid indicator as to whether he claimed to be divine.


The high priest rose before the assembly and questioned Jesus, saying, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?� But he [Jesus] was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?�'Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’�At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?� They all condemned him as deserving to die (Mark 14:60-64; see also Matthew 26:61-66)


Another possibility is that Jesus' affirmation to being the Messiah was itself blasphemous. This option is even less likely, since most Jews believed that the Messiah would be a mere mortal. Claiming to be the Messiah, therefore, would not constitute a claim to be God.

And yet Jesus was accused of blasphemy.

No wonder the high priest tore his robes in horror. Jesus made himself equal to God.

******

And of course I could provide all the Scriptural evidence of Christ equating Himself with God. So, again, who is using the evidence and who is clamoring, “insufficient! Not enough!�

[Elijah John]

The Evangelist John has Jesus telling us that God so loved the world that he sent him (God's "only begotten son" presumably Jesus himself) so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For debate, does this sound like something the teacher of the Lord's Prayer would say? Remember, he taught us to call God "Father".

If the key word here is "begotten" and if Jesus actually claimed to have been God's only begotten son, wouldn't he have explained the difference between a "begotten vs. an adopted Son of God?

How likely is it that the word "begotten" is a theological insertion by the Evangelist John, and not something Jesus actually said?

That is exactly what Yeshua is addressing in His discussion with Nichodemus. His point was that being born an Israelite does not make one a de facto representative of the kingdom of Adonai. As the text states, "You(Nichodemus) should not be surprised at my saying 'You must be born again.'" It was well understood under rabbinic interpretation that some one who is not born an Israelite must undergo a mikvah of conversion(be born again) in order to be accepted into the assembly of Israel. Yeshua is just extending this understanding by applying it to the assembly the kingdom of Adonai. One can claim physical rights based on one's physical birth, but one can only claim spiritual right base on spiritual birth. Yeshua being the only begotten son, this would require everyone else to undergo a spiritual mikvah of conversion(be born again) to be accepted.

Be that as it may, do you think the phrase in John 3.16 "only begotten Son" is something the real, historical Jesus ever uttered in reference to himself?

Why do you accept John's phrase at face value as coming from Jesus, when none of the other Evangelists record Jesus as having said any such thing?* Why wouldn't it have been more likely John's theological interpretation of Jesus, as opposed to something that Jesus actually said?

I dunno, sounds like a theological development to me, and not historical.

-----

(* Remember, Mark does not even contain a Virgin Birth narrative, why do you supposed what has come to be such an important dogma was omitted from the earliest Gospel, if it were a fact?)

[marco]

You think if He would have said, yes at that moment to those who asked if He was the Christ, they would have believed Him? That’s cute.

I prefer to examine words in front of me rather than speculate on what might or might not have been had the weather been different. I have no idea what's cute, as you term it, about my interpretation. I didn't speculate.

Are you a parent? Reason/lecture/explanation does not typically work with small children. Sometimes a smack/hit is the most efficient way to save a child from immediate harm from something worse and to help them understand the importance of the message you are trying to send. If a room was on fire in my home, I wouldn’t think twice about throwing my child out the window to save him from flames, even if he might get bruised in the process.

It is best to stick to the aspect of your example with which I disagreed. No child was being saved by defenestration; a child was being smacked instead of being pulled away. Smacking is completely unnecessary.

Yes, just like I would take action against some bad influence that has no qualms about putting my child at risk. This makes sense.

Your sober parallel doesn't apply to God. Babies were being fed to gas chambers; Jewish rabbis got down and prayed; God didn't smack the babies - he let them perish.

Unless your view of the ancient world comes from Monty Python, people didn't carry stones in their pockets just itching to stone someone. The charge of blasphemy was serious, and stoning was against Roman law. Therefore, the reaction of Jesus' original hearers provides a solid indicator as to whether he claimed to be divine.

Jesus maintained that God was his Father, so why would he deny this? He invited us all to call God our Father. The writer of this piece is saying that because somebody tore his clothes in shock, Jesus must be God. Remarkable.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

It is best to stick to the aspect of your example with which I disagreed. No child was being saved by defenestration; a child was being smacked instead of being pulled away. Smacking is completely unnecessary.

I disagree. Smacking could teach the child to never touch the hot stove again – pulling away would not send the same lesson.

Your sober parallel doesn't apply to God. Babies were being fed to gas chambers; Jewish rabbis got down and prayed; God didn't smack the babies - he let them perish.

You are an expert in what applies to God? Perhaps your narrow interpretation misses the correct understanding in knowing what applies to God and you gravely misjudge His actions and reasons.

The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. (Is 57:1)

Jesus maintained that God was his Father, so why would he deny this? He invited us all to call God our Father. The writer of this piece is saying that because somebody tore his clothes in shock, Jesus must be God. Remarkable.

Not quite. I submit my understanding and interpretation have more Scriptural evidence than yours. Mine takes all of Scripture into account. Oh, and mine listens to what Christ’s Church says – whom Christ left authority with to safeguard Sacred Scripture. Remarkable indeed.

[marco]

Smacking could teach the child to never touch the hot stove again – pulling away would not send the same lesson. [/quote]

Pavlov's dogs learned by conditioning. It is probably significant that when you illustrate the act of redemption it is accompanied with an act associated with anger. I see the litany, "God so loved the world he had his son tortured..." as being along the same lines. The faith we both know encourages that view.

You are an expert in what applies to God?

Ah, you treat poor Marco's miserable scepticism with high disdain. I see simple suffering and no divine medical corps. You look behind the scenes and ignoring the pain and tragedy, assume some artifice that surpasses human understanding. You are God's interpreter, not Marco. I am using earthly spectacles; yours are divine.

I submit my understanding and interpretation have more Scriptural evidence than yours.

You present your view with vigour and an enviable conviction in the truth of what you say, a conviction I once called mine.

Oh, and mine listens to what Christ’s Church says – whom Christ left authority with to safeguard Sacred Scripture. Remarkable indeed.

There is nothing remarkable in placing your faith in princes. Long may it provide comfort. Its duplicate has supported my mum through horrible tribulations and her Sunday awe has never diminished, unlike Marco's. Warm wishes.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 17 by marco]

Ah, you treat poor Marco's miserable scepticism with high disdain. I see simple suffering and no divine medical corps. You look behind the scenes and ignoring the pain and tragedy, assume some artifice that surpasses human understanding. You are God's interpreter, not Marco. I am using earthly spectacles; yours are divine.

Ah, you treat poor RightReason’s faith with high disdain. I see what is in Scripture, I hear what Christ’s Church says, and I humbly admit human understanding is limited, especially when we are talking about non human events. You are enlightened and unbiased, not me, and therefore can see more clearly. I have my head in the clouds; you are a realist.

See what I did there?

You present your view with vigour and an enviable conviction in the truth of what you say, a conviction I once called mine.

You seem quite passionate about your unbelief.

There is nothing remarkable in placing your faith in princes.

Who are princes? Jesus? The Church? My husband?

Long may it provide comfort.

I put my faith in what I see as the truth, no different from you. May all the facts, knowledge, and evidence you have obtained provide you comfort as well

Its duplicate has supported my mum through horrible tribulations and her Sunday awe has never diminished

And this bothers you because you think it harmful? Or simply nonsense?

,

Warm wishes.

You too, as always. I love the way you speak and always enjoy your insight.

[marco]

You seem quite passionate about your unbelief.

There is nothing passionate in rejection in any sense of the word.

There is nothing remarkable in placing your faith in princes.

Who are princes? Jesus? The Church? My husband?

The Princes of the Church are those who hold and have held high positions. They interpreted for us.

I put my faith in what I see as the truth, no different from you. May all the facts, knowledge, and evidence you have obtained provide you comfort as well

There is comfort in belief. As a boy I liked the metaphor of the Church on Christmas Eve lighting the midnight darkness, inviting people in. Belonging is in itself a reward.

Its duplicate has supported my mum through horrible tribulations and her Sunday awe has never diminished

And this bothers you because you think it harmful? Or simply nonsense?

Far from bothering me, it pleases me. Yes, much of what I hear, when I accompany her to church, does strike me as nonsensical but if it brings warmth into her life, it is thereby good. Why on earth would I want her to share my views?

I read about Jesus and I hear no God replying, just a good man.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 19 by marco]

You seem quite passionate about your unbelief.


There is nothing passionate in rejection in any sense of the word

Not the vibe I get.

The Princes of the Church are those who hold and have held high positions. They interpreted for us.

Yes, so? They are the ordinary men chosen by God to serve His people. And I do find it remarkable – though I probably find many things remarkable that you don’t.

There is comfort in belief. As a boy I liked the metaphor of the Church on Christmas Eve lighting the midnight darkness, inviting people in. Belonging is in itself a reward.

You seem obsessed with viewing Christianity as simply a comforting crutch.

Far from bothering me, it pleases me.

Perhaps, but it pleases you for different reasons then it probably pleases your mother. You reduce her beliefs to her needing to be part of a welcoming group. Your happiness for her strikes me as condescending and patronizing – thinking she lacks the intelligence to accept truth and would rather rely on comforting lies. Perhaps she knows much more than you give her credit and her beliefs are not emotional need based rather following the logic, knowledge and evidence that has been revealed to her.

I read about Jesus and I hear no God replying, just a good man.

We see something with the glasses we look through.

What always strikes me odd with the comment of simply seeing Jesus as a good man is the craziness of that. I would say it impossible to see Jesus as merely a good man. He was a man who equated Himself with God. He claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. He said things like unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you. He said those who believe He will raise up at the last day. He told the thief today you will be with me in paradise. He allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified. You either believe Jesus and His words or you have to consider Him mad. He was either the son of God or He was crazy – a narcissistic, arrogant deluded mad man. To say He was not divine just a good man makes no sense.