Is Jesus the son of God?

[Free]

So it sounds like you have a less than fundamentalist mind set if you don't immediately go for choice #1, Brucer. If you care to elaborate, I'm interested. And don't worry, de-conversion is not on my agenda. I prefer that people choose their own mindset. I'm just nosey to understand the details.

I don't subscribe to the typical Christian "fire and brimstone" doctrine whatsoever. There is a difference between following the teachings of Jesus and following church doctrine. They are completely exclusive.

The main reason I chose number two is because it more reflects that truth of the Jesus situation, in my opinion.

[abaris]

The main reason I chose number two is because it more reflects that truth of the Jesus situation, in my opinion.

But what is the truth?

Maybe there was a person named Jesus who somehow impressed a few people. Maybe there wasn't. But even if there was that person, why should he have been in any way of a divine nature? Jesus's miracles have been done before by other regional deities. And by regional I mean the middle East as well as the Greek/Roman sphere of influence. The gospels have been written there after all.

[robvalue]

They were just copying jesus in advance.

[Free]

The main reason I chose number two is because it more reflects that truth of the Jesus situation, in my opinion.

But what is the truth?

Maybe there was a person named Jesus who somehow impressed a few people. Maybe there wasn't. But even if there was that person, why should he have been in any way of a divine nature? Jesus's miracles have been done before by other regional deities. And by regional I mean the middle East as well as the Greek/Roman sphere of influence. The gospels have been written there after all.

Perhaps I need to be more precise in explaining my position, as my previous statements regarding my position may still seem unclear.

I view all miracles regarding Jesus as merely being an embellishment of a historical person.

[abaris]

I view all miracles regarding Jesus as merely being an embellishment of a historical person.

Pretty much how I view it too, with the exemption of saying the jury's still out, if there even was a historical person. It can't be proven one way or the other.

[Free]

I view all miracles regarding Jesus as merely being an embellishment of a historical person.

Pretty much how I view it too, with the exemption of saying the jury's still out, if there even was a historical person. It can't be proven one way or the other.

I don't disagree with you here. When it comes to ancient history, it is very difficult to prove the existence of many historical figures. We could use all kinds of techniques and arguments to eliminate people such as Plato, Socrates, Buddha, etc.

The best we can ever do with this kind of thing is approximate according to whatever evidence is available, and probability.

---

Meanwhile, Brucer, you're relying on non-contemporary sources, doctored accounts and biased partisan doctrine. Of the two cases, I know which I find more compelling. If there was any actual, genuinely airtight evidence around, there would never be a need for all this tapdancing.

Using your reasoning regarding contemporary sources we could eliminate most of the 12 Caesars. In fact, we could eliminate scores of historical figures with this reasoning.

Contemporary documents demonstrate nothing.

You have provided no evidence of any kind of doctored accounts.

Biased partisan doctrine is prevalent throughout almost all history. As we know, history is written by the victors.

[robvalue]

Oh wait, I forgot. If jesus is the son of God, that means he's not a descendant of David. So he's not the messiah. Whoops!

[Free]

Oh wait, I forgot. If jesus is the son of God, that means he's not a descendant of David. So he's not the messiah. Whoops!

lol

You are actually correct. But not in the way I understand it. Even Jesus himself said Christ could not come from the house of David. Here's what I mean:

Mat 22:41 - 22:46

While the Pharisees were gathered, Jesus asked them, "What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he?"

They said to him, "He is David's son".

Jesus then said to them, "If so, then how can David- while speaking in the Spirit- call Christ 'Lord,' when David said, "the LORD said to my Lord (Christ), Sit on My right until I make Your enemies Your footstool for Your feet?' If David then calls Christ as Lord, how then can Christ be David's son?"

And no one was able to answer his question, nor did anyone dare from that day to question him any more.

[Cyberman]

You have provided no evidence of any kind of doctored accounts.

See, this is why we kept on about the search facility. This stuff has been done to death so many times it's stopped being funny. If it ever was.

Try this for starters.

[Whateverist]

So it sounds like you have a less than fundamentalist mind set if you don't immediately go for choice #1, Brucer. If you care to elaborate, I'm interested. And don't worry, de-conversion is not on my agenda. I prefer that people choose their own mindset. I'm just nosey to understand the details.

I don't subscribe to the typical Christian "fire and brimstone" doctrine whatsoever.

Actually, that's "whateverist", but I hear you. Go on.

There is a difference between following the teachings of Jesus and following church doctrine. They are completely exclusive.

I like where you're going with this. I'd like to go one step further in the same direction. Why accept the church's book? Is there really any reason to think the bible is the literal, revealed word of God? Nope. Why not just follow Jesus but toss the bible?

The main reason I chose number two is because it more reflects that truth of the Jesus situation, in my opinion.

Hmmm, so no God necessary? Jesus the teacher will do? I like it. Makes a hell of a lot more sense without the hocus pocus of heaven, hell, creation and so forth.