Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

[No-name]

Strongvoicesforward...I have appologized to you publicly and through a pm.
There is little else I can do at this point unless you need something more specific.

I and the others mentioned have had sincere and just concerns about several of your posts which we have pointed out to you directly. I believe you are aware that you offend people and choose to do so intentionally.

For this time at least, I would ask you again to refrain from attacking me and to accept these gestures as sincere and without hidden agenda.

Kumo- there was a portion of a pm that I shared with a couple of other people in a pm for a specific reason. I informed SVF of my actions at that time, but without sufficient time for him to protest. I will not do this again, and I have appologized to and notified SVF of this previously.

 

[No-name]

Tsuyoiko's post about alternate sources is probably better than what I could come up with. There is no good reason to doubt that someone named Jesus lived in the area and time described and that he was probably executed for whatever reason. Proving it in a historical sense would probably be nearly impossible however.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Proving it in a historical sense would probably be nearly impossible however.

Agreed. So assuming it cannot be proved, can we say for argument's sake that Jesus existed? Or is the lack of evidence compelling enough to assume he didn't? I'm in the former camp. Votes please.

 

[Mycernius]

Isn't there the same problem when discussing the existance of Lau Tzu, the founder of Taoism? He is also a shadowy historical figure. Some claim that he was real, others claim he was more than one man and his writings are a collection of various thoughts of various men.
Just started reading the "Lost Books of the Bible". So far it is quite interesting. I Infancy and II Infancy deal with Jesus as a boy and teenager. Will get back to you on these after I have finished reading them.:wave:

 

[No-name]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the task implied by the title of this thread would be rather difficult to either affirm or deny. I would break it down this way:

To prove Jesus was the Son of God:
1. Prove that Jesus existed.
2. Prove that God exists.
3. Provide the parameters of "Son of God."
4. Demonstrate that Jesus met these parameters.

CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" gave a solid argument that he believed satisfied all four conditions. I can only do this if I presuppose #'s 1&2 and count the Bible as reliable for #'s 3&4. To my satisfaction, I can "prove" these matters of faith...but outside of my presupposition- I think the proof is moot.

To disprove the thread you would need only to satisfy one of the following:
1. Jesus did not exist.
2. God does not exist.
3. Jesus does not fit the agreed upon parameters for "Son of God."

I don't think it can be done. Further more I think a bevy of scholars has done a good job at countering point 3 already.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

No, PMs are a 100% private and it's impossible for even administrators to read it. Sabro probably confused it with Reputation points, which can be read by moderators in special cases to prevent people from abusing it. So please, let's just keep on topic. If you have any personal problems use PMs to resolve it.

Yes, you are right, Kumo, about PMs being private if recipients keep them private. However, it is a different matter when someone decides to "forward" them to someone out of ridicule or gathering their allies to pile on. When those messages were meant for a particular person, that should be respected and they should remain private unless the other one has explicitly told them to go ahead and forward it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward...I have appologized to you publicly and through a pm.
There is little else I can do at this point unless you need something more specific.

Well, for starters, it would be nice to see you stop encouraging posts made by others that are outright flames. When you come on and congratulate someone for "rubuking" (funny word) when they have chosen words like "Hitler, hope you are eaten alive, looney," and then try to be cute about it by congratulating a part of the post that those overt insults are embedded in, it shows a propensity towards just wanting to pile on and get "points" with someone. If you think their "rebukes" are so great, then why don`t you let them stand on their own?

I and the others mentioned have had sincere and just concerns about several of your posts which we have pointed out to you directly. I believe you are aware that you offend people and choose to do so intentionally.

Brother Sabro, when the others go back and decide to spread the criticism around in an egalitarian way from the source where you and I spoiled, I will then take their concerns as credible. Until then, they, as they did in the beginning despite your innitial launches into crassness, are viewed by me as just having closed rank with you.

I have not intended to offend intentionally. Your sensitivities, ones in which humor and witticism are lacking and wanting special protection for your beliefs, are too weak for the subject matter. That has already been discussed when you were on your rant about "intolerance and bigotry" and your insinuation that I was full of hate and bitterness.

I may alter my wit and humor when you alter your encouragement of overt flames, and the others go back and look at and judge the threads with egalitarian glasses and spread some of the "rebuking" around for the spoiling of them.

It is obvious though, your relish for thanking, congratulating, and encouraging overt flames and your pride in your numbers will prevent you from doing that.

For this time at least, I would ask you again to refrain from attacking me and to accept these gestures as sincere and without hidden agenda.

I have not been attacking you. You are too sensitive on the topic of criticism and wit and humor as it concerns your religion. I may however chose to alter and subdue some of that should you and the others take into account what I have already written above. It is up to you. Your gestures as sincere will be heeded by me from what action and response I get on that.

Kumo- there was a portion of a pm that I shared with a couple of other people in a pm for a specific reason. I informed SVF of my actions at that time, but without sufficient time for him to protest. I will not do this again, and I have appologized to and notified SVF of this previously.

To my memory, that apology was couched and premised on the fact that it was done because I had not protested against it. Besides, his offer to wait for my protest against it was "after the fact" that he had forwarded the message. That is the cart before the horse and also made the apology as how it was put forth to me as backwards. It was an insincere apology because it just wasn`t a simple: I was wrong. I am sorry I did that.

Like I said, it was couched in language that did not take full responsibility for the action.

 

[No-name]

Strongvoicesforward- gomen nasai.

Please bear with me, I thought we had cleared this up. I forwarded a portion of a pm to two people to ask for specific advice and to a third as an interested party (someone who was mentioned.) It seemed unfair to not inform that person that they were the object of discussion. It was not out of ridicule or to gather my "allies" to "pile on." I informed the originator(SVF) of the pm of my intentions and actions. This is a clear violation of protocol for which I am clearly at fault. I later appologized when I found out how hurt he was. I'm not in junior high any more, and the rules of silly whisper games occasionally escape me. I again appologize if I offended anyone and I promise not to forward or to quote a pm without prior permission.

I also believe you will find that the people that I forwarded were far from "allies." Rather they were athiests that I believed could assist and redirect your argument into a more productive direction.

I have however expressed anger over being offended to others in pm's and also congratulated a couple of people who I thought made you, Strongvoicesforward look particularly silly. You may ask Marsman what was contained in my last pms and you will find out that although I was angry and felt that doing so is rather unfair, that I have agreed to unilaterally end this tiff-- at least on my end.

I broke down the task of disproving Jesus as the Son of God, and I don't think it has been done, nor has much been done in the direction of this thread. I believe the effort should be declared a failure, unless there is more to add.

 

[No-name]

Again, I believe you misunderstand. If you looked closely at the posts of the people I congratulate it was not for calling you a Hitler or Hitler wannabe. It was either for their sharing information of a very personal nature that I felt was relevant to the discussion, or in the whale case- for a rather pointed and humorous rebuttal that I felt laid you to waste. I felt the "rebukes" were well earned and justly deserved. I am sorry you were offended.

As for my repeated apologies, I have taken full responsibility. I will take care not to offend you purposely in the near future. The is no "couching" involved.

I believe you should examine your "wit" and "humor" as it is offensive. I consider it a form of anti-religious bigotry. It does appear to me to be borne out of intolerance and bitterness. I have pointed out the specifics to you in the past that you choose to ignore and I do not believe I am being in the least bit overly sensitive. Others have also pointed out your offensive behavior. These efforts were neither crass nor one sided. I would urge you to read your own posts and those to which others have taken offense enough to call you "looney" and "a Hitler wannabe" and to examine your postings objectively to understand why others are offended by your actions. I find it difficult to believe that you are not offending on purpose since you admitted to Tsuyoiko that you were a "chess master" who knew "which buttons to push" and that I was only a pawn that you were playing. Perhaps I did not play the way you intended. I again apologize.

I'm not certain how many more times I can do this, this is five public apologies and one pm and counting... and the assertion that began this thread is still unproven.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Again, I believe you misunderstand. If you looked closely at the posts of the people I congratulate it was not for calling you a Hitler or Hitler wannabe. It was either for their sharing information of a very personal nature that I felt was relevant to the discussion, or in the whale case- for a rather pointed and humorous rebuttal that I felt laid you to waste. I felt the "rebukes" were well earned and justly deserved. I am sorry you were offended.

As for my repeated apologies, I have taken full responsibility. I will take care not to offend you purposely in the near future. The is no "couching" involved.

...

I'm not certain how many more times I can do this, this is five public apologies and one pm and counting... and the assertion that began this thread is still unproven.

Your apologies are all couched, Brother Sabro. I will have none and have no need of or for the insincerity they are handed out with.

I would not read Hitler's Mein Kompf and find something good in it, while noting the bad in it, and then send a message of congratulations to him citing the good point. If I did, I would most clearly state that which reviled me. Again, those posts had overt flames in them and you are still defending your congratulating parts of them knowing that that could only encourage or may be seen as approval of the whole demeanor of the message that came across. If you can`t see that then I would suggest you are short sighted.

I have not misunderstood. I understood quite clearly.

And look at your apology. You are apologising for something you think from my point. You are not apologising for something from your point. Why not the simple?: "I am sorry for what I did. It was wrong," without the hemming or hawing previous or after qualifying it.

Of course you won`t do it that way, because that is putting the onous of responsibility fully on your shoulder. That is what I mean is how you "couch" your apologies.

If you want the discussion to take a turn upwards and some more protection and respect for your belief system of Christianity, then make a mature decision that will get it some respect by apologising properly and again rethinking your actions on congratulating parts of rude posts.

If not, I assume you feel clinging to those thoughts outweigh the wit and humor against your Book and belief which you cherrish. And, I am more than willing to go back into the thread to show where you innitiated the tension directly between you and I.

 

[No-name]

Your apologies are all couched, Brother Sabro. I will have none and have no need of or for the insincerity they are handed out with.
I would not read Hitler's Mein Kompf and find something good in it, while noting the bad in it, and then send a message of congratulations to him citing the good point. If I did, I would most clearly state that which reviled me. Again, those posts had overt flames in them and you are still defending your congratulating parts of them knowing that that could only encourage or may be seen as approval of the whole demeanor of the message that came across. If you can`t see that then I would suggest you are short sighted.
I have not misunderstood. I understood quite clearly.
And look at your apology. You are apologising for something you think from my point. You are not apologising for something from your point. Why not the simple?: "I am sorry for what I did. It was wrong," without the hemming or hawing previous or after qualifying it.
Of course you won`t do it that way, because that is putting the onous of responsibility fully on your shoulder. That is what I mean is how you "couch" your apologies.
If you want the discussion to take a turn upwards and some more protection and respect for your belief system of Christianity, then make a mature decision that will get it some respect by apologising properly and again rethinking your actions on congratulating parts of rude posts.
If not, I assume you feel clinging to those thoughts outweigh the wit and humor against your Book and belief which you cherrish. And, I am more than willing to go back into the thread to show where you innitiated the tension directly between you and I.

If you can show me where I innitiated the tension please do. I think whatever wrong I have done has been admitted to.

I don't know what you consider a proper apology but this is number six: I am sorry if you were hurt and offended. I shall endeavor to avoid behavior that could result in offending you in the future.

 

[Mars Man]

Looks like my attempt to get us back on topic fell on deaf ears, so here's another try

I just had to go to bed a little while after 1am last night. I didn't get a chance at the time to post to this Tsuyoiko. Sorry. And thanks for helping me out with that list of works. I greatly appreciate that !!

I notice that the point has been taken up, and looked at, and agree that it would be best to hold the assumption that there had been a person, named Jeshua who in whatever way, made an impression on his followers. I will add to that, that there may be more to look at regarding that point a bit latter on.

Here, I would like to ask for clarification on the first sentence of this thread's first post:

According to the BWOG (Biblical Word of God), Jesus does not qualify to be the SOG (Son of God).

Is my understanding, as follows, correct here?

'According to information contained in the canonical books which have been compiled, and which make up, in the original tongues, what we today generally term 'the Bible', the character portrayed in the NT portion of that 'Bible' called, in English, Jesus, does not qualify to be the 'Son of God' as that same 'book' defines and describes that said term.'

If this expansion of understanding is incorrect, please expound on it to me. Thank you !!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

1. I believe you should examine your "wit" and "humor" as it is offensive. I consider it a form of anti-religious bigotry.
2. It does appear to me to be borne out of intolerance and bitterness. I have pointed out the specifics to you in the past that you choose to ignore and...
3 ... I do not believe I am being in the least bit overly sensitive.

4. Others have also pointed out your offensive behavior.

5. These efforts were neither crass nor one sided.

6. I would urge you to read your own posts and those to which others have taken offense enough to call you "looney" and "a Hitler wannabe" and to examine your postings objectively to understand why others are offended by your actions.

I find it difficult to believe that you are not offending on purpose since you admitted to Tsuyoiko that you were a "chess master" who knew "which buttons to push" and that I was only a pawn that you were playing. Perhaps I did not play the way you intended. I again apologize.

You see. This is what I mean. You rehash a statement you know I have heard from you several times, and then you affix the apology to it, as if it is premised and just offered, not out of sincerity, but as a freebie. It is premised on "not playing as you" hope I had "intended."

1. I consider your wit and humor rather perfunctory and rude in its dismisiveness, likewise. I think it is post #2 in this thread with the "strike 3" and "waste of time" comment that started this thread into direct volleys at one another. I didn`t use one pronoun addressing "you" in the opening para, but you come on in #2, rather than just focusing on the argument, decide to focus on the one putting forth the argument. Before giving me the advice to examine my statements for offense, do so yours.

2. Again with your assertions of "intolerance" and "bitterness."

How many times do I have to tell you, I welcome you to talk about your religion here. Have I ever once said you can`t speak about your beliefs?

Why is it that everytime someone strongly goes against Christianity that Christians reply with the person is either being manipulated by dark forces or that they are bitter and angry? Why can`t Christians understand that perfectly happy people have strong feelings against Christianity and just because they merely voice those feelings in discussion and debate against Christianity that it does not mean they are bitter? Can`t you comprehend that a happy person can criticisize something strongly? If your preacher criticizes atheism or Heavens Gate Cult strongly, does that make him bitter? Of course not, and I wouldn`t even suggest that he is. I would just look at his argument and filter out anything I thought he said that was irrelevant to the argument. Why can`t you do the same?

3. I believe you are being oversensitive. But, would maybe take your oversensitivity into account to alter mine, if you altered your style, re-examined your wit and humor, and focused on the debate/discussion, rather than the person putting forth the debate (again, look at how you fail to do this all the way back on just post #2).

4. Also, you always like to refer to the others who agree with you. Why can`t you stand up and argue on your own without whining so and so agrees with me? Have I been saying over and over Maciamo agrees with me about your insensitivities and other things he mentioned about your whining? No, I haven`t. If I did, it was maybe once, but I doubt if I had even did it one time. So, why are you so prone to whining and crowing that others agree with you? We can read. We know where everyone stands.

5. Yes, they were.

6. I would urge you to read your own, as well, to see how you have addressed me to see how things went spoiled.

Well, Brother Sabro, I am offended by a lot, but I have self control and don`t resort to calling people "looney", "Hitler wannabes," "hoping animals tear them to pieces to devour them," etc... I exercise self control in such overt attacks. I also do not congratulate parts of posts that are affixed to rather crude attacks like that. You do.

I can`t make everyone happy. In other words, I can`t control how they are going to be offended or not by my opinions. But, I can control my reactions to what someone else posts and in the hunting thread, even though I felt you were on the side of animal oppression, I never felt it should lead me to calling you an animal Nazi and Hitler wannabe and hope that animals would rip you to pieces and eat you. You however, don`t think of insults such as that being so bad that you can`t just ignore it and post some glowing words for some other part in the same post. You are comfortable in being close to those words and praising a sentence or two either right before them or after them -- kind of like taking things out of context huh? Why did you praise out of context, Brother Sabro? You are so high on the context thing, I am wondering why you praise out of context.

I am not offending you on purpose. I am exposing the Bible and your offense is merely a bi-product of that and one that is overly sensitive.

You showed that with your sarcastic mocking in The Hunting Thread towards the end where I announced to Kirei_na_me of my intentions to make a thread debunking the Bible -- as it, too, was an interest of mine. You immediately replied with what appeared to be sarcasm and mocking to that statement of mine -- almost as if you were challenging me. Why couldn`t you have just replied maturely with, "SVF, I, too enjoy discussing Bible issues. I look forward to seeing you in the religion/philosophy category and hopefully we can continue discussing with each other over there." ? Of course, you couldn`t reply in such a way -- you were just wanting to get the opening salvo off before the groundwork had even been laid and was putting out a call of some sorts warning your others (I guess the ones you forwarded my PM to) to be prepared for me.

You are sad, Sabro. You have to always pile on, encourage others to pile on, or use others' names to back you up -- something you have showed over and over again. Here. Come on. Stand on your own and stop inciting others and imploring their names to give your opinion credence.

 

[No-name]

Apology #7. This is getting tedious. I apologize to anyone who actually wants to discuss the topic of this thread. I am trying to make this right and taking efforts that I believe are necessary and this is definitely my responsibility. Again Gomen Nasai.

1. If you can show me where my humor is rude and perfunctory or dismissive, I will apologize. Again, I did not know you were so sensitive.

2. I find you intolerant. Calling Christianity a fraud, mocking the God of the Bible by calling him "fairy god king," ridiculing the Bible and people of faith is intolerance. Since most people don't put energy into areas they don't care about, and Christianity is obviously something you hate, the bitterness is an assumption. For calling you intollerant and bigoted, no apology is necessary since I feel the charges are founded. For assuming it was from bitterness, I appologize for making an assumption,

3. If you call me a Jap, I will take offense. If you call my children wetbacks or use the "n" word I will take offense. If you call my God "fairy god king" and mock my faith and my people of faith I will take offense. This is not exposing my Bible- this is an attack and an affront. I don't think it is over sensitive. If you go around mocking Muslims, I believe they will be rightly offended. If you call Jews or even Budhist names and mock and ridicule the tenents of their faiths they will be offended. For this I do not appologize.

4. If you read closely, there is only one other Christian currently posting on these threads. I don't whine. I don't crow. I have stood on my own and answered every actual point that you have brought. Your assertions remain simple unsubstantiated opinion.

5. Maybe people are critical of you because you are offensive, obnoxious and rude. I don't control them, and if you notice, more of them take your position on the issue- but seem to disagree with you on a personal level. Bossel and Nurizeko and I probably agree with you on the whaling thread, but you chose to piss those guys off also.

6. Although I have a really good memory, I post frequently and I don't know what has offended or hurt you. You will have to tell me if there is anything specific.

I have not called you a Hitler wannabe, a little Hitler, a Nazi, nor have I hoped that animals devoured you. Don't confuse what others have written with what I have written. I have not always defended others when you offended them or praised everyone who disagrees with you. Again, I will praise whomever I choose to praise for the reasons that I choose. I explained why I praised them...and I'm not certain that it is my job to go around defending you from everyone you offend. And although you say in the last post that you are not offending on purpose, you admitted to offending me on purpose in this thread in your reply to Tsuyoiko.

I sarcastically mocked your points on the hunting thread because I felt that they were ridiculous and had weak foundations. I replied however I replied to your statement of intention to debunk the Bible because I think it is a ridiculous pursuit. I reply as I reply- if you would like a different reply you could just ask. Again I was unaware that my reply would cause you such pain and suffering and it was not my intention. The ones I forwarded your PM (reference "huh?") were two that support your point of view on the biblical topic more or less and the question was basically "what do you think I should do about this?"

I found your response rather agressive and somewhat juvenile so I asked advice. I also sent a bit to the other object of your rant to see if he had recieved something similar. I should have waited for your reply before sharing, and sending that before getting your thoughts-- that was wrong and for this specifically and for the third time, I sincerely apologize.

I am not sad however, I am quite in love with my life. I am not piling on, as evidenced by this seventh public olive branch. I have rarely encouraged others to pile on- although I have congratualted some particulary sharp retorts, and the others' names to "back me up" you got me. I don't know how I would incite others and implore their names to give my opinions credence- I believe my opinions are just opinions and stand like all opinions- on the merits of the person. There is no pack of dogs, no great conspiracy, I have no party and excercise no control. When others flame you and call you silly names- it is not my doing. Rest easy.

Please stop calling me brother. I have two brothers. One is Sesshu Foster. Buy his novel "Atomik Aztex" please. The other is Paul and he is a precious, fragile genious. I have six sisters. I have Christian brothers whom I hold close. I have a few non Christian friends whom I consider brothers. It is a term of affection that I prefer to keep to a relatively small intimate number- all of whom I love dearly, who respect and love me back.

 

[Revenant]

2. I find you intolerant. Calling Christianity a fraud, mocking the God of the Bible by calling him "fairy god king," ridiculing the Bible and people of faith is intolerance. Since most people don't put energy into areas they don't care about, and Christianity is obviously something you hate, the bitterness is an assumption. For calling you intollerant and bigoted, no apology is necessary since I feel the charges are founded. For assuming it was from bitterness, I appologize for making an assumption.

Downright inconsiderate (lacking respect for another's feelings) would probably be clearer than intolerant (which they will interpret as letting you believe what you will, in which case, they are tolerant).

 

[Tsuyoiko]

At this rate this thread is going to get closed, which would be a shame given the recent attempts to get back on track. As I see it, the next order of business is for SVF to agree or clarify on Mars Man's last post:

Is my understanding, as follows, correct here?

'According to information contained in the canonical books which have been compiled, and which make up, in the original tongues, what we today generally term 'the Bible', the character portrayed in the NT portion of that 'Bible' called, in English, Jesus, does not qualify to be the 'Son of God' as that same 'book' defines and describes that said term.'

SVF, is that what you are proposing?

 

[Mamoru-kun]

Hello everyone! I'm sorry to enter the discussion like this, especially as "God's related threads" are not my favorites, but there are some things I would really like to have answers to, if you don’t mind.

For example, at the very beginning of this thread, some people said that it is strange for Jesus, if really he was omnipotent, to ask "why the other one hit him", that he shouldn't feel the pain, etc...Well, wouldn't it be correct to say that he asked the question more like a teaching to the people who hit than a real question (as I've read some posts latter I think)? And about the pain, wouldn't be logic to think that, a "spirit" (in comparison with humans, which have both spirit and body) like God/Jesus would of course feel everything a human feel if he/they use a human body for their incarnation? I mean, being God/Jesus doesn't mean that he/they can go against certain natural laws, don't they? It's said that God created the World, but does that include every single notion of the universe, including the pain and the happiness? Have those notions had the -need- to be created? I, being not a believer, but open to God’s things, it would be more simple for me to believe in a God who created the humans’ World, but who still would have to obey some basic nature laws. Well, such a thing.

Another one: recently I’ve seen at television an emission speaking about the people who first wrote Jesus’ life in the second testament (as I said, I’m not a believer, and have never had Christianity lessons, so forgive my terms mistakes if any). Well they said that the first one to do so lived…more than two generations after Jesus died. Is it as if I personally wrote a biography on Einstein. I mean, the only things I know about Einstein is what is written in books…but in the case of Jesus, by definition, there were no books relating his story before the first apostle wrote it, two generations after his death. So how did he do? Also, the two or three next apostles wrote other versions of the Jesus story, but with some quite differences (at screen, they especially shown the resurrection differences). So what to think about that? If it is not relevant to have a unique story for the believers to believe, I would personally appreciate to have a unique story to think about, because without it, on what base could I build my beliefs?

I hope I was not too much out of topic, and that my English and questions were not hurting too much…

 

[Kinsao]

Thank you for contributing, Mamoru-kun. ^_^

Going to your paragraph, where you return to the point made at the very beginning of this thread, what you say is in agreement with a post that I made earlier (and I think one made by Sabro, too) about the possible reason for Jesus asking the question. The point about feeling pain is also a good one. Because Jesus was a man (we have to assume for the sake of this 'feeling pain' question that Jesus existed), so he would have to have a body like everyone else's in obeying certain physical/biological laws (regardless of whether or not he was actually God as well as being man).

So, I think this point doesn't by itself prove that Jesus could not be the son of God, but in any case, SVF doesn't base his argument on just that one point.

I think that Sabro made a good point that there are certain things that need to be defined. That if you don't believe in God, there's no way Jesus would be "son of God". And then, there is the question "did Jesus really exist?" and this is a question that lots of academics have spent time working on, but I haven't read their researches. However, I would deduce that the people writing the pieces of the NT, were referring to some real person; of course, no one will ever be able to say whether and/or which certain bits were invented by the writers, became exaggerated/altered in the telling before they reached them, or had originally referred to someone else and got 'translated' onto the 'Jesus character' before the info got to the writer.

I don't think that discrepancies between the four synoptic gospels indicate that Jesus didn't exist at all; indeed, it's actually quite surprising that there are so many similarities! (Although of course maybe some scholarship has proved that one copied off another later or some such thing...) My thought is that they are in fact referring to a 'real' person - as opposed to a totally fictional character. For example, take someone writing about Queen Elizabeth I, well maybe their book is full of inaccuracies or include some stuff that really happened to someone else, or they made something up, but she was still a real person. But, if someone wrote a book about Georgy Porgy, the character is completely fiction.

Think of some fictions that many people take to be true. I find it hard to think of them. I don't mean, a false thing that can take in a few people, like a lying story in a magazine or something. I mean a big fiction, that creates a whole world that millions of people believe is 'real'. Like, imagine if vast number of persons believed that the world of Lord of the Rings is real, or something. If the Bible is totally fictional, I think it could be credited with being absolutely the BIGGEST, most hugely successful book of all time, whatever else you think about it!

As far as parameters of the son of God goes... uhhh... I can't deal with that right now... my brain has overheated. I might return... :nuts:

Oh - sorry if I'm not making much sense... stream of consciousness stuff, y'know... :relief:

EDIT: oh, and by the way I'm a Catholic. I just had another read of this page and thought it might be relevant to put it.

 

[Mars Man]

Another one: recently I?fve seen at television an emission speaking about the people who first wrote Jesus?f life in the second testament

A BIG HELLO there Mamoru-kun !! Wow, I was a little surprized, but of course, very, very pleasantly surprized !! I recognized the picture right away, but not the forum name. . .

Thanks a lot for your post !! There may be some slightly misinformation in the wording of that program, if I connect the above portion, with that below.

Also, the two or three next apostles wrote other versions of the Jesus story, but with some quite differences (at screen, they especially shown the resurrection differences).

It could be that 'first' simply had meant the order of the present arrangement--the likely author of the book of Matthew is considered to have been later. (Though not two generations) Scholarship at large agrees on the understanding that 'Mark' had been first composed, and had been built on by Luke to some extent, and then again, by 'Matthew' too. It is likely that the work 'Matthew' had depended on a source on which the 'Didache' had also depended.

I really liked both post folks !! It seems that you know enough there Kinsao san !! Nice one !! j

Thanks for helping out Tsuyoiko !! Strongvoicesforward san, I do hope that you would take the time to help us get a solid and air tight understanding of the terms, and concepts inherent in that first sentence. I'm counting on you my fellow poster !!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Is this what you are referring to Mars Man?

Is my understanding, as follows, correct here?

'According to information contained in the canonical books which have been compiled, and which make up, in the (1)original tongues, what we today generally term 'the Bible', the character portrayed in the NT portion of that 'Bible' called, in English, Jesus, does not qualify to be the 'Son of God' (2)as that same 'book' defines and describes that said term.'

1. That is pretty much right. However, as for original language, that is a point I could not verify because I am not a scholar in original Biblical languages. I accept that the many versions of the Bible translated by large Bible boards of expert tranlators in Biblical languages have used the best words they felt warranted with their experience.

I know you are interested in original languages Mars Man and you are more than welcome to pick at verses I post with the right word you feel is correct. However, I am wondering if you are going to be decisive and choose one word and say this is exactly what should be used or just cloud the meaning by saying it could be any number of these words? In that case, I will definitely side with the large bible boards and their translators. On another instance when you do choose one word and it is at odds with another and changes the meaning, well, I may cede it -- and maybe not. At any rate, I do think your suggestions of word meanings could be interesting so long as I don`t notice a trend in trying to provide "trap doors" leading out of dilemmas.

2. Yes, and more. By more, I mean that if there are contradictions, lies, deceptions, and or other characteristice that go against a God of perfection, then those, too, are things that show Jesus could not be the son of a god as it is put forth he is God.