Premier Rock Forum

chopjob wrote:

Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:Dude never porked a chick.
Probably one of them queers.

Prolly wore Birkenstocks, too.

"Jesus Wore Birkenstocks" sounds like the name of an album or a song. Probably about baiting hippies.

I'm working on a song tentatively titled "Death By Chocolate Jesus".

NerblyBear wrote:Again, it would have been much better if Jesus had said "I am the incarnate God." But how is this ambiguous (paraphrasing):

Jesus: Do you worship the Son of God?
Blind man: How do I know who he is so that I could do so?
Jesus: You have actually been seeing him, and you are talking to him right now.

... for we are all children of god.

He doesn't say worship the son of god. He says believe in god as the father of everyone. He is saying that we are always among and speaking to this "son of god." He is not saying "worship me," he is saying "god is the universal father."

This sentiment is constantly reinforced in scripture, whereas the dogma "Jesus is the uniquely divine son of god" isn't. That's my point.

Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:Dude never porked a chick.
Probably one of them queers.

Didn't you see the Da Vinci code? He had children all over town.

I think Jesus seems like a fucking cool guy, and if he was around today I'd definitly love to be his friend/see him in concert.

steve wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:Again, it would have been much better if Jesus had said "I am the incarnate God." But how is this ambiguous (paraphrasing):

Jesus: Do you worship the Son of God?
Blind man: How do I know who he is so that I could do so?
Jesus: You have actually been seeing him, and you are talking to him right now.

... for we are all children of god.

No. Nowhere in the four gospels does Jesus say or imply that everyone is a "child" of God in the same way that he is the son of God. Find me a passage saying or implying this and I will put up 100 bucks. The phrase "children of God" occurs nowhere, IIRC.

He doesn't say worship the son of god. He says believe in god as the father of everyone. He is saying that we are always among and speaking to this "son of god." He is not saying "worship me," he is saying "god is the universal father."

This sentiment is constantly reinforced in scripture, whereas the dogma "Jesus is the uniquely divine son of god" isn't. That's my point.

Yes he does. Refer to the second quotation in my first post above. He says "the Son of God"; my quotation is verbatim.

If he means that we are *all* this collective "son of God," then why doesn't he use the phrase "sons of God"? He doesn't use it, because that's not what he means.

The phrase "God is the universal father" occurs nowhere in the four testaments, IIRC.

I'm sorry to be a dicknose about this, but this canard that Jesus didn't say or imply his own divinity has been repeated ad nauseam by many people, and it's just not true. Read the entire Gospel of John. It is *solely* dedicated to Jesus establishing his own divinity. That's it. There are no parables, very few miracle stories. It's all "son of God," all the time. He constantly says that the way to heaven and the way to the Father is *through* him.

You'd have a better case if you focused on the other three Gospels, because those never mention what is mentioned in John's.

I can't argue with you about intent of John, and I don't have much stomach for parsing the bible to prove a point, so I'll let you hassle this out yourself or among other people who care.

Having said that, I contend that these quotations, even if interpreted the way you interpret them, are still a mighty slim defense of Jesus making claims of divinity. John says the Jews said Jesus said "x," which John presumed the Jews interpreted as meaning...

Further I contend that Jesus calling god "father" all the time is more telling than anything else in the gospels. He is encouraging everyone to have the relationship to god that one has to a father, and to treat everyone as a brother, all part of a direct family.

If you can't see this as the main point of his preaching, then I guess you are putting more weight on a specific interpretation of a couple of sentences than on the bulk of the gospels. Okay, that's your bag. You're welcome to it, and you're welcome to the company you keep in there.

sphincter wrote:I think Jesus seems like a fucking cool guy, and if he was around today I'd definitly love to be his friend/see him in concert.

Jesus Was Way Cool

But seriously, as a kid I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and this topic came up at least once in religion classes. Matter of fact, I never remember receiving an adequate explanation (at least, not one that satisfied my curiosity at the time). I remember in one religion class, the priest pointed out that the issue of Jesus' divinity versus his humanity has been highly debated among biblical scholars, but the important thing to remember is that he was both God and man.

I read somewhere that when the current canon of the Bible was finally decided during one of the Ecumenical Councils, certain books of scripture were excluded because they placed too much emphasis on Jesus' humanity and not enough on his divinity. Other books were excluded for political reasons, but you'd think that if any book contained a passage wherein Jesus stated unequivocally, "I am divine," there's no way they'd have excluded it, unless it was really radical or something.

During the Dark Ages, when Bibles were being hand-copied by monks, minor changes in wording were often made, and passages were sometimes added. During this time, how could such an important detail have been overlooked? You'd think that some abbot or monk would get the idea to throw that little tidbit in there for the benefit of those of dubious faith.

I like the part about him rising from the dead.

If you are dead

and entombed in a cave

and the entrance is blocked by a rock

and someone finds that the rock has been rolled away

and your corpse is no longer there

then obviously you have risen from the dead!

I mean, that's the easiest explanation. Not graverobbers followed by hungry wolves or anything like that.

tmidgett wrote:I mean, that's the easiest explanation. Not graverobbers followed by hungry wolves or anything like that.

OK, that's the funniest thing I have read in a while.

Salut, Tim!

God, not god?!?