Try the Trinity.

[wil]

Well, for one Noah did exist and there was a global flood.

Sigh, ok

 

[Thomas]

It makes no sense that the Jews in his locality all thought he was God.

I doubt many did. They thought Him perhaps a prophet, perhaps the Messiah. Even the disciples were unsure, until after the resurrection.

He wouldn't have been allowed to preach in synagogues for so long teaching that.

John says – but then you'll be obliged to discount John (on specious grounds) so I won't bother you with that.

It's clear that the jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy on more than one occasion. He abandoned His ministry in Judea for a while, because of the threats against Him.

Mark 11-12 clearly details Jesus' enemies trying to catch Him out and failing, so plot to bring him down by devious means, because He has a popular following. Luke 20 speaks of the same thing, so I think the evidence is against you on that point.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I doubt many did. They thought Him perhaps a prophet, perhaps the Messiah.

That would make sense .. I don't believe that he taught he was God.

It's clear that the jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy on more than one occasion. He abandoned His ministry in Judea for a while, because of the threats against Him.

Yes, I agree .. many of the Sanhedrin, and those that supported them, were against him.
They did not like having their authority questioned.

They liked quibbling with him, in order to find a reason to squash the authority that he had established amongst the community.
He was not known as "the King of the Jews" without good reason.

Mark 11-12 clearly details Jesus' enemies trying to catch Him out and failing, so plot to bring him down by devious means, because He has a popular following. Luke 20 speaks of the same thing, so I think the evidence is against you on that point.

No .. they were trying to catch him out.
Neither Herod or Pontius Pilate found fault in him .. he did not preach violent revolt etc.

The Sanhedrin were trying to get him on a technicality. It was not justified. He did not claim to be God.

15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
...
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
...
27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,
28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?
29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.
31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?
32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.
33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.
- Mark 11 -

 

[powessy]

I think such deep thinking needs a response. You dont have to read it if you dont want to.

But from my point of view, you are correct.
We can not fathom anything about the spiritual, for we are not in that environmant.
However, we can reference to what was recorded in the scriptures we have.

It works this way.
500 years from now, after an Apocalypse where only a few people remained that never learned any religion, we stumble upon a library, a small one, less than 15 books.
One Bible, a Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Diache, the Hadith, Upanishad, a Gita, the Egyptian Book of the dead, and a couple more.
And we get the God Delusion, and the Principia of Newton. Das Kapital and Mein Kamph might also be there.

Now we can safely say, we dont know anything about anything on science and religion.

One guy takes the old publication by some obscure scientific organisation, which we dont know who they were (NASA) and he studies this scientific descriptions on the origins of the Solar system.
One takes the Bible, the other the Gita and another the Quran and so on.

Ye are only about 10 000 people, 3 generations after everyone else was wiped from the earth, and we are curious to know what these ancient buildings and rusted machinery is we see around us.

We fortunately know how to read and write, and we decided to form a panel of readers that will discuss what we learned.

We are intelligent enough to learn to use telescopes, after we dusted it off, and saw that the ancient book of NASA gives a very good explanation on what the universe consists of, and their explanation on how it formed is very logical.

But we dont know how it came into existence.

On one of our meetings where we told each other what we learned, Someone tells us that he started to read a book, and that book speaks about a Creator that made it all.
He says, even the very beginning of the book gives an explanation.
Another guy says, he also found another book, that has some explanations similar than the first.
A few more people tells the same story.
One guy says he wondered why the book he read, vehemently opposed this stories about a Creator and says everything came out of nothing, but gravity.
So, how will me know which book or philosophy is correct?

This is exactly where we are standing today without an apocalypse.

We have our thoughts about nothing, yet we refuse to read what answers is supplied in books that claim to have the answer.
Well, I can only criticize an atheist after I read the God delusion, or the Quran for that matter.
Any Atheist criticizing the Bible, without reading it first, is guilty of deception.
However, I can not understand how anyone can criticize Einstein, if they never read his theory of special relativity.

Anyone criticizing any philosophy, without ever investigating it for himself, is a mere fool.

That's why I read it all. to see if there are answers to my questions.
Not to sit in a bubble thinking I will get the answer if I think a lot about nothing.

Knowing nothing about nothing at all is how we all come into life. Knowing nothing about nothing here is learning something about something that there are no books that can ever teach you about it. I have had thousands of out of body experiences and thousands of astral projections that have only scratched the surface of the realms of nothing here.

They say that everything we have learned today is mimicked through nature and observation. Our ability to learn or teach ourselves things is through our ability to figure things out. Never stop trying to learn or figure new things out about everything here it is just these things teach you nothing about nothing here. If you wish to read every book ever written on the planet that is great but these books teach you nothing about nothing here.

Through my time of them teaching me things I find myself using anything I can to create links between something here and nothing here. My brain is bias and it is set in its ability to figure things out this has made me change the way I think about things and do things.

I just wanted to explain what I meant by figuring things out by not knowing anything at all “ here”.
When you figure something out inside nothing here this is the first step to knowing the answers to your questions. As they say, you have to become something here many many times to figure yourself out all the time.

Powessy

 

[Thomas]

That would make sense .. I don't believe that he taught he was God.

That's what His trial was all about! That's why He was crucified.

Yes, I agree .. many of the Sanhedrin, and those that supported them, were against him.
They did not like having their authority questioned.

Agreed. But nevertheless ...

They liked quibbling with him, in order to find a reason to squash the authority that he had established amongst the community.
He was not known as "the King of the Jews" without good reason.

OK

No .. they were trying to catch him out.

LOL, that's what I said!

Neither Herod or Pontius Pilate found fault in him .. he did not preach violent revolt etc.

Quite. The crime was blasphemy. Herod and Pilate, political players both, made sure to keep their hands clean.

Only Luke records Herod's involvement, and Luke also notes that Herod had a mind to kill Jesus (cf 13:31). But Herod would need to be discreet – his murder of John the Baptist hardly endeared him to the people.

Technically, in Roman Law it would make sense that when Pilate was presented with a criminal, he would send the criminal to the regional authorities in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed – in this instance, that would be Herod. Luke notes that Herod and Pilate were at odds, but became friends after this encounter – a win-win for Pilate – Pilate knew that any action he took without consulting Herod could be seen as a snub, so chose not to offend him.

The Sanhedrin were trying to get him on a technicality. It was not justified. He did not claim to be God.

Nonsense. The trial was for blasphemy, not some 'technicality' which I doubt would have been sufficient for the death penalty, anyway.

Mark 14:61-63, Matthew 26:63-65, Luke 22:66-71. It's quite clear.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonsense. The trial was for blasphemy, not some 'technicality' which I doubt would have been sufficient for the death penalty, anyway.

Mark 14:61-63, Matthew 26:63-65, Luke 22:66-71. It's quite clear.

60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
- Mark 14 -

He didn't actually claim to be God.
It was His authority that they despised.
i.e. "ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

They condemned him to death, because they wanted him out the way.

 

[OupaPiet]

I doubt many did. They thought Him perhaps a prophet, perhaps the Messiah. Even the disciples were unsure, until after the resurrection.

John says – but then you'll be obliged to discount John (on specious grounds) so I won't bother you with that.

It's clear that the jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy on more than one occasion. He abandoned His ministry in Judea for a while, because of the threats against Him.

Mark 11-12 clearly details Jesus' enemies trying to catch Him out and failing, so plot to bring him down by devious means, because He has a popular following. Luke 20 speaks of the same thing, so I think the evidence is against you on that point.

Why did they have to go to such extensive actions?
Think about it.
Here is a Man who went all over Samaria and Judea, performing miracles, and when he spoke whole villages came to listen to him.
5 000 men, with their wifes and children will be at least 12 000 people.
Not only on one occasion, but wherever he went, there were crowds of people listening and truing to see him.

Let me clarify what was going on.
The temple and government in Jerusalem controlled everything with religious systems, and the people had no say in government. They were the cash cow to the priests of Jerusalem, that was protected by the Roman kings to control the populace.
Here coms a Man, claiming to be the Son of God, making himself equal to god, and the citizens on Judea followed Him, which was a huge threat to the people in control.
Everyone learned from Him and His disciples about God, which they did not get in the temple anymore, and the money dried up.

The people started to look after their own according to what Jesus taught, and this was a threat to the income of the priests.

They had to conspire to kill him.

Well, after Jesus' Resurrection, they totally lost their support as the Judeans and Samaritans simply left Judaism, and followed the Apostles.
Even when the Jewish priests sent out their forces to persecute these apostates, they only helped to spread Christianity wherever these Christians fled to all over the known world.

The kings and Princes and priestly control of Jerusalem was diminished to a mere religion as we know Judaism today.
No longer did they have their cash cows to enrich them with the use of religion.

The population left the priestly worship and followed the man they saw was their Savior and God.

 

[OupaPiet]

@OupaPiet

Jesus was a devout and learned Jew, who taught in the synagogues .. not God.

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
- Luke 4 -

It makes no sense that the Jews in his locality all thought he was God.
He wouldn't have been allowed to preach in synagogues for so long teaching that.
No .. Jesus taught them about their religion, emphasising the "Greatest commandment of all".

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
- Matthew 7 -

Really?
So why did the Priests then persecute the Christians for at least 40 years after Jesus was resurrected?
Where did all the people go that payed their tithes to the Temple?
These same people followed the Apostles, who witnessed everything about Jesus' life, and even followed the Apostles' rules about Jesus in the Didache (earlier than 80 AD), summarizing the Gospels and, furthermore teaching exactly why they worshiped the Father, The Holy Spirit and Jesus.
It shows how the religion was not reporting to the Temple anymore, but to Jesus.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, after Jesus' Resurrection, they totally lost their support as the Judeans and Samaritans simply left Judaism, and followed the Apostles.
Even when the Jewish priests sent out their forces to persecute these apostates, they only helped to spread Christianity wherever these Christians fled to all over the known world..

They were not apostates .. they were still Jewish.

Historians continue to debate the precise moment when early Christianity established itself as a new religion, apart and distinct from Judaism. It is difficult to trace the process by which the two separated or to know exactly when this began. Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues together with contemporary Jews for centuries.
Jewish_Christian - Wikipedia

 

[OupaPiet]

They were not apostates .. they were still Jewish.

Historians continue to debate the precise moment when early Christianity established itself as a new religion, apart and distinct from Judaism. It is difficult to trace the process by which the two separated or to know exactly when this began. Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues together with contemporary Jews for centuries.
Jewish_Christian - Wikipedia

Thank you!
I am glad that you agree that the first Christians were Jewish.
Even Paul and Peter went to Asia Minor, Greece etc. and preached in the Synagogues, and the people believed in Jesus after they investigated the scripture, and were babtised in the Name of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost.
Read Acts and you will find at least 6 references to the Jews in Asia Minor accepting Jesus as the Messiah, their saviour.

 

[Thomas]

60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
- Mark 14 -

He didn't actually claim to be God.

Actually, if you know scripture, He did. Let me explain:

61 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Caiphas says 'the Son of the Blessed' (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ) – 'blessed', eulogētós, is an ecclesiastical term for God. So the question is: Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?
62 And Jesus said, I am
So, an indisputable claim to divine status.

And then He adds: "and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Jesus' use of 'Son of Man' is a significant reference to the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Ezekiel, the prophet himself is addressed as 'son of man' (cf 2:1; 47:6), and Jesus' use of the phrase does not discount its reference to His prophetic ministry, but Jesus' words are a direct reference to Daniel 7:13–14. There, "one like the son of man" (my emphasis, Jesus claims not to be 'one like', but actually 'be') who comes "on the clouds of heaven" (a phrase redolent with divine and spiritual significance) "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:14)

Note that "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" – all things rightly belonging to God and due only to God – for Jesus to claim this for Himself is either a blasphemy or a statement of fact – that He should be accorded those things which, according to the Covenant Decalogue, belong to God and are God's alone.

Hence his accusers were convinced of it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Actually, if you know scripture, He did. Let me explain:

61 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Caiphas says 'the Son of the Blessed' (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ) – 'blessed', eulogētós, is an ecclesiastical term for God. So the question is: Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?
62 And Jesus said, I am
So, an indisputable claim to divine status.

No .. a "son of God" in the OT is one close to God i.e. a prophet or a saint

And then He adds: "and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Jesus' use of 'Son of Man' is a significant reference to the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Ezekiel, the prophet himself is addressed as 'son of man' (cf 2:1; 47:6), and Jesus' use of the phrase does not discount its reference to His prophetic ministry, but Jesus' words are a direct reference to Daniel 7:13–14. There, "one like the son of man" (my emphasis, Jesus claims not to be 'one like', but actually 'be') who comes "on the clouds of heaven" (a phrase redolent with divine and spiritual significance) "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:14)

Note that "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" – all things rightly belonging to God and due only to God.

Not according to Jewish thought.
The prophecy in Daniel is about a worldly kingdom .. one which will be realised on the appearance of the Messiah.

Book of Revelation also refers to it..

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
- Revelation 20 -

 

[Thomas]

No .. a "son of God" in the OT is one close to God i.e. a prophet or a saint

Context is everything ... Caiphas knew what he was asking, and Jesus knew it too.

Not according to Jewish thought.
The prophecy in Daniel is about a worldly kingdom .. one which will be realised on the appearance of the Messiah.

No, please read the verse again: "his dominion (is) an everlasting dominion ... shall not pass away ... shall not be destroyed." (7:14).

Book of Revelation also refers to it..

Yes, the book is influenced by Daniel.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Context is everything ... Caiphas knew what he was asking, and Jesus knew it too.

Are you sure it is not you that think you know what he was asking?
Why is "son of God" mentioned several times in the OT, and does not refer to "a god"?

No, please read the verse again: "his dominion (is) an everlasting dominion ... shall not pass away ... shall not be destroyed." (7:14).

God's dominion is an everlasting one, of course.
..but the "son of Man" is not understood to be "a god", as far as I'm aware, by Jewish thought.
Son_of_man - Wikipedia

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
- Daniel 7 -

Christ [the Messiah] will rule along with the saints here on earth for 1000 years, as per Book of Revelation.

 

[Thomas]

Are you sure it is not you that think you know what he was asking?
Why is "son of God" mentioned several times in the OT, and does not refer to "a god"?

Because I'm referring to Daniel's apocalyptic prophecy, as was Jesus.

But this is dancing round in circles. I believe, you do not. C'est la vie.

Let's leave this here, agreeing to disagree.

 

[EricPH]

Jesus Prayed that we should be 'One' in exactly the same way he is 'One' with the Father. But How?

John 17 -11 Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because I'm referring to Daniel's apocalyptic prophecy, as was Jesus.

..but didn't all the early "Christians" attend the synagogues?
..and book of Daniel is a Jewish apocalyptic text.
The Jews do not see book of Daniel as referring to a Messiah who was "a god", or God.

But this is dancing round in circles. I believe, you do not. C'est la vie.

I believe in God .. but I do not believe that Jesus is God, or claimed to be God, no.
I have attempted to explain why, without referring to the Qur'an.

 

[wil]

Oh my, people believe different things, AND they believe they are right! I should tell the world.

Yes you tried to tell others of your beliefs and why you believe them, news at 11.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh my, people believe different things, AND they believe they are right! I should tell the world.

Yes you tried to tell others of your beliefs and why you believe them, news at 11.

It's interesting, that's for sure.
We have 2.4 billion Christians and 1.9 billion Muslims in the world.

Most Christians believe that Jesus is God, and Muslims believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time
- 1 Timothy 2 -

Hmm .. One God .. and One mediator between God and men..
..The Messiah cannot be a mediator between God and men, if he is God, himself.

Oh well.

 

[moralorel]

Actually, if you know scripture, He did. Let me explain:

61 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
Caiphas says 'the Son of the Blessed' (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ) – 'blessed', eulogētós, is an ecclesiastical term for God. So the question is: Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?
62 And Jesus said, I am
So, an indisputable claim to divine status.

And then He adds: "and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Jesus' use of 'Son of Man' is a significant reference to the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Ezekiel, the prophet himself is addressed as 'son of man' (cf 2:1; 47:6), and Jesus' use of the phrase does not discount its reference to His prophetic ministry, but Jesus' words are a direct reference to Daniel 7:13–14. There, "one like the son of man" (my emphasis, Jesus claims not to be 'one like', but actually 'be') who comes "on the clouds of heaven" (a phrase redolent with divine and spiritual significance) "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:14)

Note that "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" – all things rightly belonging to God and due only to God – for Jesus to claim this for Himself is either a blasphemy or a statement of fact – that He should be accorded those things which, according to the Covenant Decalogue, belong to God and are God's alone.

Hence his accusers were convinced of it.

I advise people who are interested in learning about the Bible to study the title "Son of Man" in the Bible, especially in the OT. You absolutely can not understand who Jesus was to His followers unless you have read up on the "Son of Man" mentioned numerous times in the OT. I'm glad you bring Him up.