Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Jesus, Gods son?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is Jesus, Gods son?

    9
    Last edited by Geonagual; 09-29-2020, 06:24 AM.

    #2
    No, most the people I've heard about with Messiah Complexes in recent history have been cult leaders and even those who were more innocuous religious/spiritual leaders, I don't believe were a supernatural entity incarnate. I don't see any reason to believe in any extra juju in the world 2000 years ago.
    Last edited by Audiogen; 07-16-2020, 03:15 AM.

    Comment


      #3
      We're all children of God in the exact same way. Jesus was a prophet at best. Not God incarnate.
      He wasn't some supernatural entity that assumed a mans form: he simply was a man. You seem to see that differently Geonagual ?

      And what is the relevance of the trinity in your post? You see him as Gods son regardless (if i read it correctly?). To me the concept of the trinity is irrelevant either way. The Bible may support the concept, but is not mentioning it.

      Comment


        #4
        I just really don't care if he was God's son. That makes him special? Fuck that. To me it's much more of a trial just to be a human being.

        Comment


          #5
          If he really understood people, he wouldn't need to be worshipped. Many met the same fate he did. Perhaps that's why he was forsaken.

          Comment


            #6
            Catholic belief says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit who came to Mary and told her she was with child.........Take it or leave it, it's in the bible.......so according to Catholic doctrine, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of woman, thus making him the "human" son of God.....BTW, Jesus is not the first hybrid born of a god and human.......Our mythologies are full of hybrids (demi-gods) born from supernatural beings and human matings.
            Last edited by IamAnudist2; 07-15-2020, 05:34 PM.

            Comment


            • Din Djarin
              Din Djarin commented
              Editing a comment
              Catholic christianity was merely the most dominant form of it in our parts of the world (before protestantism took over). And how did they got in that position? Is it the original form of christianity? No, at best one of the original forms. We are not bound by catholic dogma.And so shouldn't our perception on Jesus be limited by catholic doctrine.

            • IamAnudist2
              IamAnudist2 commented
              Editing a comment
              I am not promoting any belief system nor do I believe in any religion. I am just stating what many Catholics and other Christians believe about Jesus...........what you or any Christian believe in is of no importance to me.

            • Lynnbrown
              Lynnbrown commented
              Editing a comment
              IamAnudist2 Thank you for explaining, concisely, exactly what is actually in the bible...and how it DOES explain how Jesus was (or could be) God incarnate. This is what many people seem to forget - there actually is an "explanation" . Whether people choose to believe it or not, the explanation IS there. 👍

            #7
            i dunno. i don't believe he was actually god's son. but i don't know what he was. maybe just an interesting guy. maybe a fictional character. i think the option that i consider most likely is that he was a bunch of different people who blended together to become one as their stories were told over and over for however many years.

            Comment


              #8
              Of all the stories of demi gods and heros born from mortal man, woman and God. And then there's Jesus the Jewish Carpenter lol. You lucked out, son.

              Comment


                #9
                It's interesting that no one wrote down a physical description of Jesus. We don't have a clue what he looked like. It's also interesting that no one who knew Jesus wrote anything about him. Paul claims to have met with Jesus' brother James, but that's as close as it gets.

                Comment


                • IamAnudist2
                  IamAnudist2 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  There are first-hand accounts of Jesus that have survived, but none have been included in the current bible. And, none give a physical description of Jesus. But if we assume his family came from Galilean stock, I would think he would look very similar to current day Arabs/Palestinians (Semitic people) who still live in that area.

                #10
                IamAnudist2 Could you tell me which first-hand accounts of Jesus' life you are refering to? I was under the impression that, at best, there are only second-hand accounts of him.

                Comment


                • IamAnudist2
                  IamAnudist2 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  The Vatican has a copy of the record of his trail. There is the gospel of Mary Magdalene and of Thomas and others...all first-hand accounts by men and women who knew him and were with him. These gospels are not considered worthy of being included in the current bible because they depict Jesus either too human, too mystical, or too god-like.....some even contradict the accepted gospels and some authenticity is in question. But, many are believed to be accurate first-hand accounts.
                  Last edited by IamAnudist2; 07-18-2020, 01:22 AM.

                • Din Djarin
                  Din Djarin commented
                  Editing a comment
                  The accepted gospels contradict themselves also.

                • Lynnbrown
                  Lynnbrown commented
                  Editing a comment
                  There are books and different (I think sacred) writings that are not included in the bible, as IamAnudist2 indicated. I have read the Apocrypha and The Lost Texts (the later an especially thick tome)...and Jesus is mentioned in first hand accounts a number of times. The Vatican has records that we will never see and most will never hear of.

                #11
                We didn't have a description of what Jesus looked like? I do actually think he's a pretty good handsome man in every depiction I see. Maybe it's the hair, maybe if it's the rugged look of a man. But Jesus sexy af.

                Comment


                • Irminsul
                  Irminsul commented
                  Editing a comment
                  That's cool too. I mean personally I'd figure the son of God or the son of the Holy Spirit would probably have some sorta angelic look, androgenous even. Is that the word? So feminem Features wouldn't be unrealistic.

                • Din Djarin
                  Din Djarin commented
                  Editing a comment
                  He looks like a philosophical metalhead. I can relate :-D

                • Lynnbrown
                  Lynnbrown commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I definitely think he was handsome, and charismatic. He was supposed to have faced EVERY temptation, and not sinned...to me he just HAD to be handsome to experience as much temptation as possible. It pissed EVERYBODY off that he particularly liked Mary Magdalene, the recovered whore.

                #12
                100%

                Comment


                  #13
                  He most likely didn't look like those (generally medieval) depictions of course. His hairstyle is imagined and he likely had a more middle eastern appearance.

                  Comment


                    #14
                    They didn’t describe him because it did not matter what he looked like. He appealed to their hearts. There are many eyewitness accounts of Jesus, even secular accounts.
                    he walked the earth, said what he needed to say, fulfilled prophecy in the Bible and the ascended.

                    Comment


                      #15
                      Originally posted by Din Djarin View Post
                      We're all children of God in the exact same way. Jesus was a prophet at best. Not God incarnate.
                      He wasn't some supernatural entity that assumed a mans form: he simply was a man. You seem to see that differently Geonagual ?

                      And what is the relevance of the trinity in your post? You see him as Gods son regardless (if i read it correctly?). To me the concept of the trinity is irrelevant either way. The Bible may support the concept, but is not mentioning it.
                      you say “Jesus was a prophet at best” , what brings you to that conclusion?
                      you say “he simply was a man”
                      If that was the case, why were people convinced he was Gods son while on earth? Performed miracles, raising humans back to life. There has never been a simple human doing that.

                      Comment


                      • Din Djarin
                        Din Djarin commented
                        Editing a comment
                        I find it still the most plausible option. About his miracles: those are stories. Many miraculous events in the Bible, do you all take them literally and at face value?
                        He was likely a remarkable man, with great rhetoric skills/charisma, but still a man, not a deity incarnate. I call him a prophet at best because of what he preached. Not because I believe in future predicting prophecies. He technically matches the definition of a prophet.
                        About people being convinced he was Gods son: people have believe weirder things over the course of history. Also about fellow men during their lifes.
                    Working...
                    X