aa5874

So, why would Peter and the disciples, including the writer Paul falsely claim Jesus was a God or the son of a God?

The disciples ran away from Jesus, yet after he was executed for blasphemy, the disciples themselves were preaching that Jesus was the son of God so much so that they were in turn executed.

Something is honestly wrong with the Jesus story.

Julio

Something is indeed very wrong, since the presumed “Designer” of the enterprise messed it up completely!
It is simply absurd that Jesus’ Holy Father could not come up with a better plan, where credibility would be absolutely crucial, truthful and undeniable.

Julio

In other words, the gospel per se is a messy business from day one, with Herod KILLING innocents and all the rest of it. It would be expected from Jesus’ Father a much better plan. We are so disgruntled with this mess that we have to deny and mock the entire theatrics. That, after trying to untangle the business for the last 2000 years. It’s a horror story.

Julio

Bottom line: we deserved a better God and a better Saviour.
Two gods failing for the price of one, as it were; it’s not acceptable, sorry.
No more christs, please!

Sign Related

Figure now what "the abomination of desolation"? Plus Teleportation. The answer.

Implying, becoming once in a span an abomination (existence) only temporarily. And a span certainly before any extreme tribulation. Dont let of desolation sound scary when it is a beautiful thing in what indeed plus Teleporation. Certain persons are own plus Crafts with own Craftiness. So understand a physical body doesn't tell (or doesnt have to tell), whether or not, the Plus Craft still manning the body or an implant automation (of craftiness) is running the body to seem much the same. The rapture no way should be obvious when it been an inner inside job, so to speak. Key clue the "verily" word which means "in truth." It is truth and it is in truth. In truth come not so obvious how truth moreso obvious.

An expond somewhat further more in the moral principle forum. The "Any which..." topic.

The which are an "of desolation," awaken differently to knowing their temporary self to leave. And awaken to knowing their role plan inner this existence so set for tribulation, while inner. The knoweldge of this existence becomes totally numbness (the numb-er referrecne in Rev 13) outside it since this a one-time sport to stay true to in that it is a numbness sport. Also implying, any thing, say, abominable here should not in any wise shape one's way when one returns authentic only upon outside near here. The scary stuff has the more beautiful referrences. Why? Since the scary stuff in the bible make for better seals till the moment of in truth arises inner a true 666 seal breaker. This place (a plane) is the 666 chip people inner, but the "Of Desolation" become total numb to ever having been inner it.

Back on topic... See how refferences go? "Of Desolation" a referrence for "Plus Teleportation" or rather "Any Non-Existence Person Seeming Existence."

Jane H

I'm not a Catholic, so an ecumenically minded Protestant will have to do for now.

A lot of these issues will inevitably depend on your view of NT accuracy; however running with it as historical...

The scene with Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:55-64 parr) has Jesus alluding to Daniel 7 and Psalm 110. However one reads “Son of Man”, the implication is clear enough- Jesus is declaring himself to be about to become the one seated at the right hand of God, with the “clouds of heaven”- a C1 Jewish allusion to the presence of God. What Jesus said was enough for “blasphemy” to be declared (not a feature of the trial before then), and a unanimous death sentence to emerge.

Secondly the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1-12) has Jesus cast himself as a relative, rather than servant, of the landowner (God).

Finally for now, there is the question of Jesus' role. God had said in the OT that He would return to Zion (Isa 52:8 et al), sort out the sin thing (Isa 25:9-10 et al), and declare a new beginning, albeit a painful one (Mal 3:1-4 et al). Jesus whole life was an enactment of these and other “God-shaped” deeds, in symbol, word and action.

Julio

In John 9:35, new versions [based on the UBS Text – Minority] put Jesus as calling himself “the Son of man”, not the “Son of God”, as it appears in the Textus Receptus versions [KJV, etc.].
But, observe the NIV [or GNB] making this man Jesus was a son, a God with a capital “M”!
I never appreciated the NIV at that verse.
I find it spurious insolence and dishonest liberty.

Susan2

Did Jesus ever state that he was the Son of God?

If not, why not?

It seems to me that if Peter, the disciples and Paul claimed Jesus was a God, or the Son of God it is because Jesus fit their description of what a God, or the Son of God would be. Therefore their claim is not false, but is rather opinion, specifically, their opinion.

Does another opinion exist?

To accept their opinion that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, or a God, is to agree with their definition of God is, and intends to continue as.

An example; Does God hate women? Does God care for children, does he wish to decrease their suffering or increase their suffering? Is it the will of God that women suffer immeasurable pain on behalf of winning men to the cause of women suffering immeasurable pain? Paul thinks so, do you?

Is the Catholic church using underhanded discriminating genocide against women in their campaign against condom use to protect oneself against HIV/AIDS if it is well known that women are more vulnerable to the disease?

Are it’s parishioners practicing the same if it is parishioners who make up the church, as in ‘we the people’?

Did Jesus imply that he was the Son of God? In that Jesus is the story, as much as the story is about Jesus, is Jesus, does the story imply that Jesus is the Son of God? And if so, does the story define God? Is that the purpose of the story, to define God in the context of Christianity?

Each one of these religions exist to define God. How accurate are they, how true? To define God is to know God. To know God is to ascertain intent.

Does God hate women, in that all of these writings show such hatred of women?

blastula

John 20:27-28

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

jon-eli

This is the only part of your post I take issue with. The rest was very lucid, and improved the signal-to-noise ratio of this thread a great deal.

That said, the Sanhedrin trial is completely ahistorical. It's probably been discussed to death, but I guess it's still necessary to point out that the correct punishment for blasphemy was stoning, that the Sanhedrin never convened at night and never during a festival, and that even if none of that were true, the trial was too short. The whole thing would have been a farce, and even if it's conceivable that a farcical, kangaroo-court of a trial may have taken place... Jesus certainly never did anything so outrageous as to warrant such effort on the part of a high priest.