StarCross

Good morning.

In response to several complaints, this new and improved poll and thread explores scripture's claims about the identity of Jesus. Please remain on topic and discuss your interpretation of scripture regarding its claims concerning Christ's identity. Personal opinions regarding the accuracy of scripture regarding its claims should be discussed on another thread.

Thanks
StarCross

Southern

I think scripture claims he was God made flesh, so if I was a believer I would go for God and man at the same time.

The problem is that I have to buy into quite a grand scaffold of assumption to even take part in this vote, so I'll abstain instead.

I honestly think polls like this are better suited to Christianforums or some place where the veracity of the Bible is implicit in the participants of the debate.

StarCross

Thanks for the response, Southern. You puzzle me, Southern. What assumptions would you have to make to participate? Why not simply read scripture itself and draw your own conclusion? Here is my own answer to the poll question:

Scripture claims that Jesus is the Son of God (John 1:34, Matthew 16:16, Romans 1:4). He is the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore the correct answer is #4. He is not God and he is not a mere mortal man but a unique being, something in between.

I made no assumptions whatsoever but simply interpreted the verses that were referenced above and drew what I believe to be the correct conclusion.

Thanks
StarCross

Southern

I guess I'm just wary of getting involved in a discourse that in some respects takes for granted the Christian paradigm as fact.

So yeah, I probably shouldn't have posted at all. Although I don't presume to know what other people are thinking I just wanted to illustrate why some people would be reluctant to vote in your poll.

StarCross

Thanks for the reply, Southern. I happen to be a Christian but I do not expect anyone to take anything for granted. I wanted to know how people on this board interpret scripture apart from whether or not they believe scripture is true. I expect that most of the members here do not accept the Bible as true at all. That isn't relevant to this particular thread.

Thanks
StarCross

smokester

Doesn't Jesus identify himself as the 'Son of Man' frequently?

StarCross

Hey smokester,

That is correct. A Biblegateway.com search of the NASB translation reveals 82 references to "the son of man". Here is the breakdown:
Matthew - 29
Mark - 13
Luke - 26
John - 12
Acts - 1
Hebrews - 1

The gospels contain 80 of the 82 references. That may be a clue as to the meaning of that phrase. My own conclusion is that Jesus in the flesh was a result of the overlapping of God's infinite realm with this physical realm in the same way that a child is the result of the overlapping if you will of its two parents. Creation is, in a metaphorical sense, the mother of Jesus and God himself is his father. The term 'Son of Man' probably refers to Jesus in the same way as saying that I am my mother's son and the 'Son of God' refers to Jesus the same way as saying that I am my father's son. That's an educated guess based on my limited understanding. Perhaps someone else has a different view.

Thanks
StarCross

Gooch's dad

It depends on which "scripture" you're reading. In Mark, Jesus is a man, trying to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. By the time you get to John, Jesus is some kind of intermediary between God and man. And in Paul, you get kind of a mixture, and it seems to depend a lot on whether it is early writings of Paul or later writings.

But I agree with Southern. This whole question presumes the Christian paradigm, and it also presumes that "scripture" would have one coherent view of who/what Jesus is. It doesn't.

Just as one example: in Matthew 15 you have Jesus telling the pharisees that washing your hands wasn't particularly necessary before eating. This, in an era when they were likely as not to have shit all over their hands? Jesus is obviously just a product of his time--a man who quite certainly has no idea what bacteria are.

StarCross

Hello Gooch's dad,

Thanks for the response.

Creating a poll with 100 possible resonses doesn't seem very practicle. I included the response 'all of thee above' to satisfy those who think that the Bible claims Jesus to be God, man and something in between all at the same time. If that isn't satisfactory, I don't know what to do.

As for the idea that somebody has to presume the Christian paradigm to participate, I don't understand that at all. I am merely asking people to interpret what scripture says. You may presume there to be no God whatsoever and still participate. In fact, my whole point is to discover what atheists and agnostics believe scripture to be saying even though they may not or do not believe scripture themselves.

Thanks
StarCross.

graehame

I submit to you that the only correct way to understand the words of Jesus & the Apostles is in whatever manner the Christians of the first generation or two understood them. This was the period when the surviving Apostles & those whom they personally taught were still around to correct any misunderstandings. Whatever we think of any particular Scriptural passages from a distance of 2000 years can be right or wrong, no matter how we buttress our opinions with scholarly discussion. Whatever the first & second generation Christians thought of those same issues had to be closer to the truth, though, because if they got it wrong they could expect a carrier pigeon to show up within a few days from St. Paul, St. John, or somebody of that calibre. (Just kidding about the carrier pigeon.)
It's clear that the Christians of the first & second generations believed that Jesus was the Son of God, a co-equal member of the Trinity with God, & that He was also a man, born of woman.
Great idea for a thread, by the way.