Jesus was the Son of Man, sent by God. Jesus was God, but also Man, so that he might teach and reach Man. But Jesus was always God, so when you are praising Jesus, you are actually praising God, because God is the One, the True, the Highest. There is no other, only God's works, which is God. Jesus was God's Love. The Holy Spirit is God's Word.

It depends on your interpretation and where you place the emphasis and who you believe, for example: Paul and such state that Jesus died for your sins, whereas the emphasis on Luke's Gospel and his Acts, it is on the fact that Jesus was unjustly killed and serves as a symbol for you to examine your sinful nature. Yes they are talking to you and your sinful sinful nature, I see you out there, you are sinning right now aren't you? LOL!

There is only One Presence, One Power, in the universe.
God the Good, the Omnipotent.

А здесь сведели Иеговы?

Jesus prayed to God the father ...but who did God the father pray to? ...if the answer is no one ....then the father is God not Jesus

Jesus was a bloke with a beard, just like me

Except im not gay.

No, Jesus is not God. God is not limited. Jesus admitted he did not know everything by admitting he did not know the houer of his return to earth. God is omniscient and does not give his glory to another. But he does give rewards and sets up kings and priests and prophets. Trinitarians are idolators. It was a custom to bow down before kings and dignitaries, Joseph's brothers bowed down to him, this did not makwe him a god in Egypt. That people bowed before Jesus was symbolic of his place as King of Kings, not proof he is God. And I don't care how many Christians believe he is God, he will straighten them out upon his return.

wow,, that is such a deep discussion,,because the terms God and Lord are so interchangable in some contexts and so specific in other

I believe Jesus is Lord,, he is the living word of God, and the son of God, and in relation to me he is God but in relation to God he is his son


kind of like my father is my father, but my granddad is his father
we just dont use the terms God and Grand God,,lol

I'm a non-Christian now, but I was raised by a Christians family and studied that religion and scripture extensively. At one point I was thinking about becoming a preacher and therefore wanted to understand the scriptures as well as possible (so I could explain them to others). Therefore I had to ask the tough questions. What soon became obvious to me is that the scriptures cannot possibly be true. I had not choice but to recognize that the story is unjustifiable and not worthy of teaching.

Many Christians may take offense at my comments here, but I must be honest and truthful, and this is my honest and truthful assessment. Besides, if there is a supreme creator should I not also be honest and truth with him/her/it? The truth is that I personally see the Bible as being impossible, as well as genuinely stupid in parts.

Finally, more to the point. The whole idea of Christianity is that Jesus was the blood sacrifice made by the God of Abraham (also called Yahweh) to appease himself on man's behalf. In other words, the Christian story demands that we must first recognize and accept Yahweh as God, and then we must accept that Yahweh created a mortal song through Mary with the express plan of having him crucified as a blood sacrifice to himself so that he could "Forgive" mankind their sins. The idea being that no other sacrifice would be pure and innocent enough to "appease" God.

So to make a long post even longer, I don't believe that Yahweh was God anymore than I believe that Zeus was God. They were both quite similar even in being appeased by blood sacrifices (which was a common theme of all religious mythologies of that region).

Secondly, it makes no sense to me that a God would need to appease itself by a blood sacarifice before it can be compassionate. I would genuinely be grossly dissapointed if that was indeed the true nature and personality of our creator.

So when it comes to Jesus, the real question you are asking me is whether I believe that Jesus was "The Christ". And my answer is absolutely not, because I don't believe in the mythology that requires a "Christ" to exist in the first place.

Finally, once I had made all of those observation and realizations, I then went back to study who this man Jesus might have actually been and how this Christian mythology actually came to be. I have a theory on this that makes perfect sense to me, so I would like to share it.

Jesus lived at a time when Mahayana Buddhism was flourishing in India. To fully understand the significance of this one should know something about Mahayana Buddhism. It means "Great Vehicle" and was a philosophy that basically suggests that it doesn't matter what you believe it matter how you act. It teaches right actions, right thoughts. Moreover, and important to the Jesus story is that at that time it also taught a concept known as Bodhisattva. A Bodisattva is a Buddhist monk who dedicates his life to teaching others how to become enlightened.

Well, Jesus was missing from the Biblical stories from the time he was 12 until he was 30. That gives him 17 years to go to India and become a Mahayana Buddist Bodhisattva. He then returns and teaches this philosophy at the expense of his own life.

Why do I believe that this is a reasonable story? Because everything that Jesus taught was in perfect alignment with Mahayana Buddism and in direct opposition to the teachings of Yahweh in the Old Testament.

Why would the Son of Yahweh reject the teachings of Yahweh in favor of the teaching of Buddha?

Finally, Jesus was crucified for his blaspheme of Yahweh. Not for his agreement with that religion.

There are also historical reasons to believe that after Jesus' crucifixion there was much debate on who Jesus really was. Many claimed that Jesus was "The Christ" that was predicted in the Old Testament, but many followers of Jesus disagreed with that. There was much controversy and the authority of the "Church" that was based on the Old Testament was in jeapordy.

These arguments and questions went on for about 50 years after Jesus had died. Finally some authoritarian decided to write "Gospels" that demanded that Jesus was indeed "The Christ", they really went out of their way to try to prove this. And those gospels aren't even consistent with each other in their exaggerations.

Shortly after that these newly self-proclaimed "Christians" ordered that all pagan temples be burnt to the ground and/or destroyed and that anyone who does not bow down and worship Jesus as "The Christ" shall be shunned by the church (and potentially executed if they are too vocal about their beliefs)

The Library of Alexandria was destroryed and one of thir brightest teachers Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob at the command of the Bishop simply because she was a "pagan" and didn't believe in the mythology of "The Christ".

So yes, I totally reject the mythology of "The Christ" too, and I sincerely believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddist Bodhisattva who was brutally crucified for teaching love and right thinking over the judgmental and revenge that had previously been condoned and taught by the mythology of the God named Yahweh.

Jesus could not possibly have been the "Only begotten Son" of Yahweh. Jesus was not "The Christ". There is no such thing as a "Christ". That was a false mythology to begin with, just as false as the mythology of Zeus.

That's my honest and truthful assessment, and if there exist a conscious creator of this universe, then I must be honest and truthful and confess that this is precisely what makes sense to me.

Any God who would condemn me for being Honest and Truthful couldn't be much of a God to begin with anyway. If you can't be truthful with God, then who can you be truthful with?

From my sincere point of view, the Biblical myth is so utterly absurd and ignorant that it can't possibly be the word of any divine being. How can anyone believe that our creator would be appeased by blood sacrificies to begin with? That's a red flag right there!

this makes absolutely no sense. Jesus in no way or form was God..he never said he was and your book proves he was not but some peophile made this up at the coucil of nicea and you sheep bought into it

To answer your questions:

No.

No.

No.

No--if he existed, he was human

simply apply logic .....

Is Jesus God? ...Jesus is supposed to sit on the right hand side of God

Is Jesus the son? ....no son prays to his father

Is Jesus a Trinity God?...does the father pray to another..if not, then why did Jesus pray to the father ...

Is Jesus only a Man? ....he died which means he wasn't omnipotent, he said only the father knows which mean he was omniscient, he popped out of a womb, have to eat food and drink water... oops..I meant drink wine to live

conclusion ....Jesus was a dude

I am not a dumb sheep by the way. Jesus taught Christians to think. If not then why would he say be as kind as doves and as cunning as snakes? Therefore all Christians are commanded to be smart. So I read and I listen. Even Job insists that "the ear tastes words like the moth tastes food". There are Bible verses that imply Jesus is like God, and verses that say he is not. Both ideas can be applied especially if they are taken out of context. Take the line he says "my father and I are one" and "he is in me and I in him." Taken out of context many christians deem this the end of the discussion, the proof of their heresy. If you read on, you will see soon after this he says, "us in them, and they in us" more or less. Now what? Do we also become Gods? If we go along with what is taught from today's christian pulpits we might as well assume this to be true. But no, we will never be gods, for God does not give his glory to another, he merely gives rewards, such as sitting at Jesus's right or left hand. Judge with righteous judgment. If you insist that believing Jesus is God is part of the Gospel, why don't you preach this when you are converting people on the streets? No, the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus's blood sacrifice; why then once a man is in the church is the Trinity added to his message of salvation along with the insistance that he believe six days of creation, the opening of the Red Sea, a Virgin Birth, etc, etc, etc. What happened to the Gospel? Where is it? Lost among all the details that are not as important. The thief only possibly understood what was crucified before him, and that's all he needed to enter paradise. If you tell me I need to beleiev Jesus is God to be saved, you are asking me to trust in your own illegal wisdom, and I will never do this. I'd rather trust in Jesus and what he did for me. Like the serpent lifted up in the wilderness, those who did not look upon it died. I will not perish with you. Goodbye trinitarians. I have a highway waiting for me, it's called The Lord's Highway and only the sanctified can walk upon it. And only God decides what way is the right way to walk upon it. Not you. Heh.

if Jesus thought that his followers were smart, he would have preached the gospel straight forward instead of having to resort to parables

I once read a book called "More Than a Carpenter", it made a good point about Jesus. He could only be one of three things.

1. Lord
2. Liar
3. Lunatic

He claimed to be god in the flesh.

Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?" John 14:6-9

Having made this claim, break down the possible truths in it.
1. He was right and he knew it.
2. He was wrong and he knew it.
3. He was wrong but thought he was right.

Start with #2, the Liar possibility...

While it is possible, most liars would not suffer the fate he did while proclaiming the lie. He never cracked. He didn't back down at the trial before his crucifixion. Even on the cross, he cried out "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

If he was wrong I doubt he knew it... which leads to #3, the Lunatic.

Look at the Sermon on the Mount. It is regarded as one of the best sermons ever given by anyone. And it is more than just a sermon. Look at what was taught in it. It is a road map to a good life rivaling anything that modern psychology would teach as how to have a well rounded life. Could a lunatic have come up with this on his own 2000 years before the rest of the world could put it together?

That only leaves you with one choice left. he was right and he knew it...

Having said all this I must point out that I am not a christian. I was raised in the church and have studied many religions and find something lacking in them all; however, this book has stuck with me for the last fifteen or so years.

Or #4. Jesus was totally misunderstood by the writers of the gospels.

You say:



Well supposedly John wrote that. That's not something that Jesus said, it's simply something that JOHN claims that Jesus said. John could have simply misunderstood what Jesus was trying to convey.

The Bible is nothing but opinionated hearsay. It doesn't even contain a single solitary word directly from Jesus. Not one single word. I fact, to claim that "Jesus Said" anything is a misrepresentation. Because the entire Bible is written as hearsay. What people really should be saying is "John Said", Or "Matthew Said", Or "Luke Said", etc.

It's actually false and incorrect to even say that the Bible contains the words of Jesus. It doesn't. It merely contains hearsay. It's a book of hearsay rumors.

that Jesus had to ask God to forgive only shows that he wasn't God and knew he wasn't God

that Jesus ask God why has thou forsaken me only proves he wasn't God and knew that ..

Hmmm . . . You are "commanded" to be smart? How about knowledgeable? They are separate aspects. In addition, by your blanket statement, you exclude people with even average IQs from Christianity--not even to speak of mentally handicapped people.

How do you define "smart"?

Luke 18:16 states: "Then Jesus called for the children and said to the disciples, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children," indicating that a high level of thinking skills is not only unnecessary, but not desired. Children born smart are smart, of course, but they have not yet developed long range executive thinking skills and other logical ways of thinking.

Of course, 1 Corinthians 13:11 contradicts that by saying: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

So, which is it: reason like a child and attain heaven, or put childish reason aside and think like a man? (I am not a man, so that doesn't apply to me, anyway.)

Illegal wisdom??? Whoa, that's Nazi talk. Let's burn a few books.

By this logic, everything we know about much of history is a lie as well.

I am sure that most people know who Harriet Tubman was. She played a vital role in the Underground Railroad leading hundreds of slaves to freedom. She is frequently quoted and held as an important figure in American history. She could not read or write. Are you saying that because she never actually penned any of her own words that we should not believe she ever spoke? To claim that Harriet Tubman said anything is a misrepresentation? We cannot rely on anyone else to pass on messages she gave? Really?

Go back several hundred or thousand years, how much of the population was literate? Are you saying that the only truths we can find about a person are in that persons autobiography? We should not put any weight into what others say about them, only what they actually write about themselves? Really?

How far do you want to take this line of "logic"?

Not everything. But clearly there are always two sides to every story. I very seriously doubt that the American Indians would paint the same picture of all the conflicts and wars they had with white men as the white men would describe those same events.

Some parts of history are fairly certain. For example Custer lost a major battle with the Indians and was himself killed. However, does that mean that we should believe every DETAIL that every historian writes about that battle? There is a very famous saying among historians, "History is written by the winners!". The losers seldom have the resources and clout to get their side of the story into mainstream history. Especially into the cultural history of the winners who would reject the losers side of the story anyway!

So YES, when it comes to the DETAILS much of history is indeed a LIE. At at best, a very biased exaggeration from the point of view of the "winners".



Aren't you going a bit overboard with this? Are YOU suggesting that just because we know Harriet Tubman existed we should BELIEVE everything that everyone CLAIMS that she might have said VERBATIM?

I don't think so.



No of course not. I'm not saying that at all, YOU are the one who is suggesting such extremism. Not me.

I actually give the stories about Jesus SOME credibility. I believe that there really existed a man named Jesus who taught many of the things that have indeed been passed on through the writings of the gospels, and that Jesus was indeed crucified horrifically for what he taught. That's what caused so many rumors!

I might add that a lot of people don't even believe that Jesus ever lived. There are many people who believe that Jesus was an entirely fabricated ficticious character. I don't go that far. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that some guy did teach AGAINST the morals of the Torah, and he was indeed crucified for his views.

So now are you suggesting that we should then take EVERYTHING that is written by the authors of the gospels to be the VERBATIM words of this Jesus (simply because we accept that he actually existed?)

Really?

I personally think that would be very unwise. Historians and theologeans themselves agree that the gospels weren't even written down until at least 50 or more years after Jesus had died. What human do you know can remember VERBATIM what was said FIFTY YEARS AGO?

Also, if you read some of these gospels (Matthew in particular) there is an obvious strong desire of the authors to try to convince the readers that Jesus truly is "The Christ" that they claim. However, none of them have Jesus himself actually laying claim to that title or position.



When it comes to the claim that Jesus was "The Christ", I'll take itto the limit! I'll question EVERYTHING. And when I do I find far more reasons to believe that the authors of the New Testament had an obvious AGENDA and they screwed up and dropped the ball on many points.

Even if I were to ignore these things, the overall story doesn't make any sense. EVEN according to what the authors of the gospels wrote, they have Jesus rejecting many of the morals and directives that had been previosly given by the Yahweh in Old Testsment. Yet they also have Jesus saying, "I have not come to change the laws, not one jot nor one tittle!"

Well, as far as I'm concerned they dropped the ball right there! You can't have Jesus claiming not to be chaning the laws on jot nor one tittle and then turn right back around and have him doing precisely that!

If these authors had half a brain they would have had Jesus proclaiming that he claim to change the laws and start a new covenant with mankind. That would have at least made more SENSE!

So, NO, I don't trust the hearsay rumors in the Bible at all. Why should I? Those men clearly had an agenda to use Jesus to prop up the Old Testament!

I imagine the RUMORS of Jesus were quite popular back then. In fact there were may OTHER RUMORS of Jesus that never gained in popularity simply because those rumors belonged to the "losers" so-to-speak. After all, the gospels were used by the church to DEMAND that eveyone worship Jesus as God. The clergy of the churches even sent out their armies to DESTORY and MURDER anyone who had a differeing OPNION!

So are you suggesting that we should ignore all that? Really?

How far do you intend to take that logic?