If Jesus Is God

[TheRedneckProfessor]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with god, and the Word was god… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

 

So proclaims the gospel of St. John, the Beloved.  We are, thus, invited to believe that jesus was, in fact, god.  But should we?  Does this claim of St. John’s stand up to what we “know” of god?  Does this claim even stand up to the information provided in the other gospels?  I propose we look at the divinity of jesus with just a modicum of simple logic, and I predict we will raise more questions than we answer upon the subject.

 

For example, St. Matthew provides a lineage in order to demonstrate that jesus was a direct descendent of Abraham, through the line of King David, on his father’s side.  Matthew then immediately says that Joseph wasn’t jesus’ father, but that Joseph had adopted jesus.  If jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, why go to such great lengths to tie jesus back to such an admirable ancestry?  Was his status as the son of god not already enough?  Why not simply state that jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, and then get on with the rest of the story?  Was this an attempt by St. Matthew to express what a good man Joseph was, because he was willing to adopt the child?  If so, then why is Joseph hardly ever mentioned again after the blessed nativity?  Moreover, if Joseph was such a good man, why was jesus overly obsessed with his “heavenly father”?  Children who grow up under good parents rarely have such father-figure issues.

 

If jesus was god, then why did he curse the fig tree?  The gospel makes it plain (Mark 11) that it was not the season for figs.  Surely an omniscient god would have realized this, especially if that same god had divinely inspired the writer of Ecclesiastes with the words, “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens” (Ecc. 3).  Moreover, an omnipotent god should have been able to make the fig tree bear fruit out of season, if he could also turn water into wine and feed 5,000 with a few fish sandwiches.  So, why would an omniscient, omnipotent god become so enraged against an innocent tree?  Why resort to hurling curses, when he had so many other recourses?

 

If jesus was god, then why did he heal people?  I know we are supposed to accept these healings as miracles and accept the miracles, in turn, as proof of his divinity.  But surely, an omniscient god must have realized that we would eventually learn to make our own medicine, and surely that same god must have known that many of our medicines would be simple chemical compounds easily found in nature.  For practical purposes, wouldn’t jesus’ time have been better spent counseling Luke the Physician on the healing properties of the berries, herbs, roots, and flowers that grew locally, rather than casting out demons on a first-come, first-served basis?  Wouldn’t using his omnipotent knowledge of the human body and the medicinal qualities of natural extractives have given us a better foundation upon which to build modern medical practice?  And wouldn’t this have been a better demonstration of his divinity than slaughtering an entire flock of pigs because of a schizophrenic called “Legion”?  The jesus in the gospels seems to have not even known that boiling willow bark would yield a highly effective pain killer in the form of acetylsalicylic acid, commonly referred to as “aspirin”, yet we are compelled to believe he was god?

 

Here is an interesting consideration: Do suicides go to heaven?  Most of the christians I know would say absolutely not.  But doesn’t the gospel make it plain that jesus knew that if he entered Jerusalem again, the chief priests and elders would have him put to death (Matthew 16)?  Knowing that it would mean death, jesus still returned to Jerusalem.  How is that any different from young Timothy drinking a gallon of anti-freeze, knowing it will mean his death?  They both made choices that they knew would lead to their deaths.  If there is another definition for “suicide” of which I am not aware, please enlighten me.  Yet, in the face of christian doctrine, not only did jesus knowingly place himself in a situation he knew would lead to his death, we are encouraged to think that he rose again and is seated at the right hand of the father.

 

Then there are the questions regarding jesus praying.  In the garden of Gethsemane, we are told that jesus prayed this prayer: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.  Never the less, not my will, but yours be done.”  Firstly, to whom is this prayer directed?  If jesus is god, then he is simply talking to himself.  Secondly, if jesus is god, then he should already know whether or not it is possible for the cup to be passed from him; he should already know that he has the power to say, “Cup, pass from me.”  Lastly, if jesus and god are one in the same, how could the will of jesus be anything but the will of god?  Why this need to submit his will to god's, if he is god?  If it is indeed possible that jesus’ will was different from the will of god (and the prayer certainly makes it sound possible), then jesus could not have been god.

 

Jesus also prayed while he was on the cross.  He prayed “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani” (Mark 15), which we are given to understand as, “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?”  But if jesus was god, then he had already forsaken himself; and he already knew why he had forsaken himself, because he had entered Jerusalem knowing it would mean his death.  If jesus genuinely did not know why god had forsaken him, then he could not have been god. 

 

Just before jesus gave up the ghost, the gospels tell us that he prayed one final prayer saying, “Father, into your hands, I commit my spirit.”  Again, to whom is jesus praying?  He made it plain in the gospels that he and the father were one (John 10); into whose hands is he committing his spirit?  If he is god, then he is simply committing his spirit into his own hands, just as he took his life into his own hands when he returned to Jerusalem.  And if he is god, he should know this.

 

I therefore submit to you, that not only do the gospels fail to present a convincing case for the divinity of jesus, when looked at with a skeptical eye, they also provide clear evidence that supports a contrary view.

[sdelsolray]

Goods questions.

 

Even fictional writing can have contradictions, inconsistencies and non-sequiturs.  The Bible provides many many examples.

[Brother Jeff]

The trinity doesn't make rational sense. But... I was taught that god and Jesus and the Holy Spook (the Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him) are one in essence but are separate persons. So you've got three gods who are somehow magically one god who are somehow magically each other but not each other. If that absurd bullshit was true, I suppose Jesus could pray to the Holy Farter version of himself as a separate person, though they are both god in essence. Doesn't make much sense though...

[RipVanWinkle]

The NT was written with the OT specifically in mind. To try to enhance the credibility of Christ and his new religion it was important to adopt the history of an old established religion, or so I have read. So it was easier to make prophesies come true by using the OT PROPHESIES and have them fulfilled in the NT.     OT foretold that the messiah would be from Abraham's "seed" and then later from  David's "seed", That is why it was important to show Jesus to be a "son" of David. It was an integral  part of the overall scheme of the NT to show that Jesus was the messiah by showing that he was identified as such in OT prophesies. So they had to show that Jesus was in David's line. None of the NT authors ever explained how this could be so in view of the supposed virgin birth. This failure is hard to explain, don't you think?   bill

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The NT was written with the OT specifically in mind. To try to enhance the credibility of Christ and his new religion it was important to adopt the history of an old established religion, or so I have read. So it was easier to make prophesies come true by using the OT PROPHESIES and have them fulfilled in the NT.     OT foretold that the messiah would be from Abraham's "seed" and then later from  David's "seed", That is why it was important to show Jesus to be a "son" of David. It was an integral  part of the overall scheme of the NT to show that Jesus was the messiah by showing that he was identified as such in OT prophesies. So they had to show that Jesus was in David's line. None of the NT authors ever explained how this could be so in view of the supposed virgin birth. This failure is hard to explain, don't you think?   bill

 

I would be inclined to think that the lineage of jesus was originally written to tie him back to tie him back to the prohecies mentioned in the old testament and that some time later, after the doctrines of the virgin birth and his supposed divinity had been invented, some other writer or group of writers came back in and added the seemingly backpeddaling remarks about Joseph's adoption.

[amateur]

The trinity doesn't make rational sense. But... I was taught that god and Jesus and the Holy Spook (the Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him) are one in essence but are separate persons. So you've got three gods who are somehow magically one god who are somehow magically each other but not each other. If that absurd bullshit was true, I suppose Jesus could pray to the Holy Farter version of himself as a separate person, though they are both god in essence. Doesn't make much sense though...

That's how it was always explained to me, both growing up in Sunday school, and as an adult during sermons.  We were then told that we could not truly understand it; it was a mystery.  Yes.  Yes, it was.

 

The suicide issue is interesting.  I never thought of that in relation to jesus before.   I do have some issue with the word suicide, tho, as we are stuck with one word with a negative meaning.  To change the subject a moment, say I was diagnosed with cancer.  I get an operation, go thru radiation and chemo.  The cancer returns, I go thru more treatment.  Then the cancer spreads into areas that can no longer respond to medical care.  At that point, I have a choice.  Take a bunch of meds and suffer til I die, or end it immediately which the world would consider suicide.  I would know I had no chance of survival, and also would know I had nothing but suffering before I died.  I would choose to end my life immediately.  We need a better word than suicide for that situation.  I bring this up as it is of great concern to me.  My mother went thru the above and had intense suffering at the end, she did NOT choose suicide -- I'm making that clear that would be MY choice, after having lived thru that and watching her death.  Trust me, there was nothing beautiful or redemptive or holy about her last month on earth (the xians who say otherwise could have sat with my mom during that month while I ran around on some feel-good mission trip).  My dad had a similar end with cancer.  Anyway, just thought I'd mention that I think it'd be nice if we had more words to describe taking one's own life under various conditions.

 

Back to our regular programming.

 

I totally agree on the healing thing.  Jesus would have understood that mental illness was NOT demons, and could have calmed people down by explaining that, then healing the mental illness NOT the supposed demons.  Jesus explaining about mental illness would have changed the course of history for people with mental illness -- it would have eliminated the stigma attached to it, and we'd probably be so much further along with treatments and definitely with humane treatment and understanding of the mentally ill.

 

I also always wondered about the crippled guy that jesus healed.  This guy lived on his mat and begged all day.  He was an adult.  Jesus said you are healed and the guy got up and walked away.  WAIT ONE MINUTE!!!  From the story, I get that the guy had ALWAYS been crippled, unable to walk or work in that society.  He begged, so must not have had family that supported him (or maybe did, but they still needed extra money, bible stories never tell enough for us to know what was really going on).  So you get this man who has ALWAYS been crippled, unable to walk or work, then suddenly he is HEALED and walks off.  Unless jesus also psychologically healed him (which is in no way mentioned), this guy was being set up to fail.  Psychologically, this guy would have a long way to go to being able to productively work every day.  He would have had to, in that one moment, go from doing what he was used to HIS ENTIRE LIFE (sitting and begging) to going out and getting productive work and being physically and psychologically able to do it the very next day, being trained to actually be able to do something well enough, being able to work well with other people (as opposed to sitting and begging), pulling his own weight at work (as opposed to just sitting and begging), and there would be the total mind-fuck of going from totally disabled to totally not in one second, which would have to slow anyone down if not bring you to a grinding halt of psychological-mess soup.

 

And jesus should have just told everybody, "Wash your hands.  Cough and sneeze into your elbow.  If you are in any way involved with helping others that involve their blood, wash your hands first, boil water and dip in anything that will touch the person, and cover the wound in CLEAN material."  Such basic things.  But for hundreds of years, so many had to die because of unsanitary conditions that could have been improved with a little soap, water, and boiling water.

 

I never got the suffering on the cross thing either.  Jesus would have ALWAYS known he was going to the sacrifice, and just what the entailed.  He also knew the end -- he'd die, be back in three days, and go to heaven.  Why did he seem to act like he had no clue what was going on when he was praying?  He knew exactly why he was here from the day he was born.  And why didn't he just make his death not hurt?  He could've pretended it hurt to make it look good.  He could've said, "Let's just sacrifice a goat instead," or he could've just got to right before the super-painful part, and loudly announced, "It is done!" and risen immediately away from that madhouse, wowed the crowd, and still fulfilled everything.  

[chrisstavrous]

My conclusion to your analysis would be that jesus was someone, maybe not even a person named jesus but someone. This unknown person would have been saying and doing things in that era that was later immortalized and idealized into the christian god, look at Joseph Smith (the founder of the mormon church) he was a complete fraud but to the Mormons he is a saint, who do you think he will be in 2000 years time.

 

The reason I believe there's so much conflict to jesus divinity in the gospels themselfs, is because this unknown and non immortalized non divine persons actions, teachings, life, remains as trace elements in the gospels themselfs and they have no relationship to the immortalized parts of the gospels we have today and therefore create logical fallacies when we try to understand them as a whole and complete gospel.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

The trinity doesn't make rational sense. But... I was taught that god and Jesus and the Holy Spook (the Spook of Kryasst who is also somehow magically Him) are one in essence but are separate persons. So you've got three gods who are somehow magically one god who are somehow magically each other but not each other. If that absurd bullshit was true, I suppose Jesus could pray to the Holy Farter version of himself as a separate person, though they are both god in essence. Doesn't make much sense though...

That's how it was always explained to me, both growing up in Sunday school, and as an adult during sermons.  We were then told that we could not truly understand it; it was a mystery.  Yes.  Yes, it was.

 

The suicide issue is interesting.  I never thought of that in relation to jesus before.   I do have some issue with the word suicide, tho, as we are stuck with one word with a negative meaning.  To change the subject a moment, say I was diagnosed with cancer.  I get an operation, go thru radiation and chemo.  The cancer returns, I go thru more treatment.  Then the cancer spreads into areas that can no longer respond to medical care.  At that point, I have a choice.  Take a bunch of meds and suffer til I die, or end it immediately which the world would consider suicide.  I would know I had no chance of survival, and also would know I had nothing but suffering before I died.  I would choose to end my life immediately.  We need a better word than suicide for that situation.  I bring this up as it is of great concern to me.  My mother went thru the above and had intense suffering at the end, she did NOT choose suicide -- I'm making that clear that would be MY choice, after having lived thru that and watching her death.  Trust me, there was nothing beautiful or redemptive or holy about her last month on earth (the xians who say otherwise could have sat with my mom during that month while I ran around on some feel-good mission trip).  My dad had a similar end with cancer.  Anyway, just thought I'd mention that I think it'd be nice if we had more words to describe taking one's own life under various conditions.

 

Back to our regular programming.

 

I totally agree on the healing thing.  Jesus would have understood that mental illness was NOT demons, and could have calmed people down by explaining that, then healing the mental illness NOT the supposed demons.  Jesus explaining about mental illness would have changed the course of history for people with mental illness -- it would have eliminated the stigma attached to it, and we'd probably be so much further along with treatments and definitely with humane treatment and understanding of the mentally ill.

 

I also always wondered about the crippled guy that jesus healed.  This guy lived on his mat and begged all day.  He was an adult.  Jesus said you are healed and the guy got up and walked away.  WAIT ONE MINUTE!!!  From the story, I get that the guy had ALWAYS been crippled, unable to walk or work in that society.  He begged, so must not have had family that supported him (or maybe did, but they still needed extra money, bible stories never tell enough for us to know what was really going on).  So you get this man who has ALWAYS been crippled, unable to walk or work, then suddenly he is HEALED and walks off.  Unless jesus also psychologically healed him (which is in no way mentioned), this guy was being set up to fail.  Psychologically, this guy would have a long way to go to being able to productively work every day.  He would have had to, in that one moment, go from doing what he was used to HIS ENTIRE LIFE (sitting and begging) to going out and getting productive work and being physically and psychologically able to do it the very next day, being trained to actually be able to do something well enough, being able to work well with other people (as opposed to sitting and begging), pulling his own weight at work (as opposed to just sitting and begging), and there would be the total mind-fuck of going from totally disabled to totally not in one second, which would have to slow anyone down if not bring you to a grinding halt of psychological-mess soup.

 

And jesus should have just told everybody, "Wash your hands.  Cough and sneeze into your elbow.  If you are in any way involved with helping others that involve their blood, wash your hands first, boil water and dip in anything that will touch the person, and cover the wound in CLEAN material."  Such basic things.  But for hundreds of years, so many had to die because of unsanitary conditions that could have been improved with a little soap, water, and boiling water.

 

I never got the suffering on the cross thing either.  Jesus would have ALWAYS known he was going to the sacrifice, and just what the entailed.  He also knew the end -- he'd die, be back in three days, and go to heaven.  Why did he seem to act like he had no clue what was going on when he was praying?  He knew exactly why he was here from the day he was born.  And why didn't he just make his death not hurt?  He could've pretended it hurt to make it look good.  He could've said, "Let's just sacrifice a goat instead," or he could've just got to right before the super-painful part, and loudly announced, "It is done!" and risen immediately away from that madhouse, wowed the crowd, and still fulfilled everything.  

 

 

Amateur, I completely agree that we need a different word besides just "suicide".  Even as I was writing that part, I was thinking: I know running in front of a Mack truck would kill me, but if I saw one barreling towards my son, that's exactly what I would do. 

 

As to healing paralytics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJFwwJ7VF8

[TheRedneckProfessor]

My conclusion to your analysis would be that jesus was someone, maybe not even a person named jesus but someone. This unknown person would have been saying and doing things in that era that was later immortalized and idealized into the christian god, look at Joseph Smith (the founder of the mormon church) he was a complete fraud but to the Mormons he is a saint, who do you think he will be in 2000 years time.

 

The reason I believe there's so much conflict to jesus divinity in the gospels themselfs, is because this unknown and non immortalized non divine persons actions, teachings, life, remains as trace elements in the gospels themselfs and they have no relationship to the immortalized parts of the gospels we have today and therefore create logical fallacies when we try to understand them as a whole and complete gospel.

 

I don't think these conclusions are unreasonable.  Whether a man called "jesus" lived or not, the jesus presented in the gospels is nothing more than myth.

[chrisstavrous]

 

 

My conclusion to your analysis would be that jesus was someone, maybe not even a person named jesus but someone. This unknown person would have been saying and doing things in that era that was later immortalized and idealized into the christian god, look at Joseph Smith (the founder of the mormon church) he was a complete fraud but to the Mormons he is a saint, who do you think he will be in 2000 years time.

 

The reason I believe there's so much conflict to jesus divinity in the gospels themselfs, is because this unknown and non immortalized non divine persons actions, teachings, life, remains as trace elements in the gospels themselfs and they have no relationship to the immortalized parts of the gospels we have today and therefore create logical fallacies when we try to understand them as a whole and complete gospel.

I don't think these conclusions are unreasonable. Whether a man called "jesus" lived or not, the jesus presented in the gospels is nothing more than myth.

Yes, and another view on this subject would be that there was never one jesus, the gospels maybe made up of the movements of multiple religious teachers/religious frauds? of that time. An argument could be made on the facts that the gospels have this jesus in different places and at different times also him saying one thing in one gospel then saying the opposite in another also his actions don't always mesh up when the gospels try to say the same story.

[centauri]

Good writeup on this issue.
It's also of note that John 1:1 alters the OT scripture.
The New Testament takes the motif further by declaring that the Word was God.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The OT scripture states that the word of God creates. It does not say that the Word was God.
The word is a product of God.
 
Psa 33:6(JPS 1917 Tanach)
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

In Rev 3:12, Jesus repeatedly admits to having a God, even after he ascended.
I'm in full agreement that the Gospels provide conflicting evidence for the deity of Jesus.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good writeup on this issue.

It's also of note that John 1:1 alters the OT scripture.

The New Testament takes the motif further by declaring that the Word was God.

 

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

The OT scripture states that the word of God creates. It does not say that the Word was God.

The word is a product of God.

 

Psa 33:6(JPS 1917 Tanach)

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

 

In Rev 3:12, Jesus repeatedly admits to having a God, even after he ascended.

I'm in full agreement that the Gospels provide conflicting evidence for the deity of Jesus.

 

Well said, Centauri

[miekko]

Regarding Jesus praying to himself, I did not - and still do not find that particular problematic. 

 

If God were to incarnate in order to live as a human and fulfill the requirements a human is supposed to fulfill, prayer is an obvious thing he should also be doing - as well as knowing that what he prays for might not be granted. In addition, rabbinic literature describes God as praying to himself (wearing tefillin and all) as well, so the notion isn't that odd, really.

[MerryG]

Regarding Jesus praying to himself, I did not - and still do not find that particular problematic. 

 

If God were to incarnate in order to live as a human and fulfill the requirements a human is supposed to fulfill, prayer is an obvious thing he should also be doing - as well as knowing that what he prays for might not be granted. In addition, rabbinic literature describes God as praying to himself (wearing tefillin and all) as well, so the notion isn't that odd, really.

 

The notion may not be unique or unusual within the bizarre world of religion. But no matter how many rabbis or gospel writers describe it, it's still odd as hell! Follows no logic. Makes no sense. Is internally inconsistant with the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Regarding Jesus praying to himself, I did not - and still do not find that particular problematic. 

 

If God were to incarnate in order to live as a human and fulfill the requirements a human is supposed to fulfill, prayer is an obvious thing he should also be doing - as well as knowing that what he prays for might not be granted. In addition, rabbinic literature describes God as praying to himself (wearing tefillin and all) as well, so the notion isn't that odd, really.

 

The notion may not be unique or unusual within the bizarre world of religion. But no matter how many rabbis or gospel writers describe it, it's still odd as hell! Follows no logic. Makes no sense. Is internally inconsistant with the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity.

 

 

Tradition is not the same as authenticity. 

[Kris]

Any god that has to pray to itself has some major problems!!!

[Guest end3]

I think it would be fair to speculate that the will of God in the person of Christ would be specific and have potential limitations.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

But if jesus was god, would he not know the specifics and limitations of his own will?  Why would he pray as though his will were different than his will?

[Guest end3]

But if jesus was god, would he not know the specifics and limitations of his own will?  Why would he pray as though his will were different than his will?

As a teacher I suspect.  And maybe the limitations were such that the human aspect had a "significant' role....i.e. I can't be that particular manifestation if I am not that manifestation.

[Guest end3]

I hesitate to mention the triple point discussion, but still seems relevant.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Oh, no, End3. Not another discussion about "manifestations!"

[Guest end3]

No, but you could take the bait on the triple point discussion....it's always good for a mental rabbit hole/masturbation.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No, but you could take the bait on the triple point discussion....it's always good for a mental rabbit hole/masturbation.

 

Okay, I'll (warily) bite.  Which is better: one god with three heads, or three gods with one head?

[Guest end3]

 

No, but you could take the bait on the triple point discussion....it's always good for a mental rabbit hole/masturbation.

 

Okay, I'll (warily) bite.  Which is better: one god with three heads, or three gods with one head?

 

Am referring to the triple point of water....where all states can theoretically exist as one.....and attaching that to the verse in Mark or John  maybe that relates the Sprit to water.

 

Am just speculating at that point there would be more potential properties existing as one vs. X properties in one particular state.....state being dependent on condition.  And then move this concept back to your trinity discussion.....

 

To your question.....reminds me of the AT&T commercials where the man is interviewing the children..."Which is better".  Very intuitive to the children that more is better, and certainly more God properties are better, i.e. Heaven.  "Unless you become like little children....."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

No, but you could take the bait on the triple point discussion....it's always good for a mental rabbit hole/masturbation.

 

Okay, I'll (warily) bite.  Which is better: one god with three heads, or three gods with one head?

 

Am referring to the triple point of water....where all states can theoretically exist as one.....and attaching that to the verse in Mark or John  maybe that relates the Sprit to water.

 

Am just speculating at that point there would be more potential properties existing as one vs. X properties in one particular state.....state being dependent on condition.  And then move this concept back to your trinity discussion.....

 

To your question.....reminds me of the AT&T commercials where the man is interviewing the children..."Which is better".  Very intuitive to the children that more is better, and certainly more God properties are better, i.e. Heaven.  "Unless you become like little children....."

 

 

So, essentially, if one were to hypothetically boil jesus (the human body being mostly water in liquid state), then jesus would turn into the holy spirit (gaseous state).  I'm just trying to think of it like a child.