Kindest Regards, koov2023!
Thank you for your reply!
koov2023 said:
juantoo3, I appreciate your reply, however I must be in total disagreement with you.
You are entitled to disagree. This world would be very boring if all agreed at all times.
If you say that Christ is merely human and nothing else, you are saying that a normal man died on that cross at Calvary.
I think it would be good to start with an example. Some years ago, I posed an answer very similar to yours, to one who suggested that Christ may not have died in the way Christians are taught. So I really do agree with you: without the resurrection, formal authoritarian "traditions of man" Christianity loses its foundation and reason for being.
What I am actually saying is that I don't know. There certainly is a possibility that God could have taken the time and made the effort to manifest in human form for a time. But if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and no other similar manifestations have come about, and especially in light of historical and political fact, there remains the distinct possibility that "Jesus as a manifestation of the Divine" is a deliberate construct to gain and maintain political power over the masses of uneducated peoples.
If a normal human being died on the cross, he could not raise from the dead. If this is the case, those who believe in this idea are dead already.
Oh? What of Moses? What of Elijah? What of Enoch? What of Melchizedek? The method of death has no bearing on resurrection. It is promised that all will resurrect, whether or not Jesus did. All will answer to God, regardless of the tradition or religion they follow.
For there is no way a human can die for the sins of the world.
Perhaps, but many have lived their lives to improve the lot of human suffering. Many wise and learned teachers have given wise counsel to their peoples. And this was ordained by God (see Romans chapter 2). God created
all creatures, including all people, and placed them where He desired. And it was not only
good, it was
very good (see the 6th day creation in Genesis).
Those who deny the diety of Christ, deny God himself.
This is a quick and easy assumption, but it does not follow. This is the rationale Christians use to condemn any and all others. God doesn't condemn (at least not at this time), people do. Just like certain other religious factions use similar reasoning to justify their actions of killing others and letting God sort the heretics and infidels from the righteous.
Might I remind of the story of Paul? Of course, this was before he changed his name, it was still Saul at the time. He held the coats of those who stoned the martyr Steven to death, and looked on approvingly. Indeed, the reason he was on the road to Damascus, was to round up and persecute Christians, thinking he was doing God a service.
Hatred in any form is no service to God. Righteous indignation, perhaps. Hatred, no.
My point being, there are a great many who do not acknowledge the deity of Jesus, but do acknowledge and reverence God (in some ways surpassing Christians). Therefore, this statement is inaccurate, which makes it false.
Those who deny God himself, will find themselves before the Great White Throne judgement, and will be found guilty and sent to their everlasting punishment in hell.
I can generally agree with this, but it does not follow automatically from the previous statement. Many other cultures and traditions acknowledge God in one form or another. Perhaps Christians disagree with their methods, but provided one is wise enough to consider, it is seldom possible to disagree with their intent.
Even within Christianity there is a vast array of contrasting arguments over which faction is correct. Each one is correct, just ask them! (-this is sarchasm, jt3) There are factions of Christianity in the world today that still use ritual sacrifice of goats and sheep!
Many many religious traditions acknowledge and worship God, without Jesus (as Christ or otherwise). This is part and parcel of how God created this world we humans inhabit.
Oh, before I go, another real eye-opener for me, was looking into the history of the Catholic church. When one looks at all of the shenanigans that went on in the name of "God" for the sake of and exercise of political power, things get a little more murky, and interpretations of Bible manuscripts by authoritarian tradition becomes a bit shaky. It is really easy to see some of the wide latitude of interpretation the Catholic church took in bringing Christianity to the forefront as a religious and political entity.
Ultimately, none of this has cleared up the position that the resurrection holds in the formulation and foundation of Christianity, in my eyes. But it does show that fallible humans have tampered with and adjusted the story to their own ends and purposes for almost two thousand years now. That Jesus may have been a human, an extra-ordinary human no doubt like Moses or Elijah, and not a deliberate manifestation of God in flesh, remains in my mind a distinct possiblity. One I prefer in contrast to another teaching that I believe is greatly misused and confused among its adherents:
The teaching that God is in all, and can be magnified or elevated in some way to effectively make that individual on a par with God. This, I think, is the greater mistaken belief. This thinking is daring to believe we can create "God" in our own image.
I adjure you not to take my word alone in these matters. By all means, I encourage you to look into these things on your own. Put another way, prove me wrong, please!
Of course, as Solomon said, knowledge is a heavy burden. If knowledge is too great a burden to bear, perhaps unquestioned blind faith is better than no faith at all. In no way do I wish to destroy anybody's faith. It is better to pursue truth within the boundaries of faith as guidelines, than to obliterate the guidelines and try to distinguish truth without a blueprint.
Thank you again for your post, and for the opportunity to express this. Your point is a crucial one to the Christian belief system in my estimation. I merely see a distinction between blind acceptance of authoritarian doctrine, and scholarly discovery of factual truth related directly to the events considered. That study, whether traditional or self-guided, must be conducted in earnest prayer.
I hope this helps.
In love and kindness, juantoo3
