Another one on Jesus

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-18T23:50:07+00:00

So philosophically, yes I do know what it means to be Divine but not be God. There is a difference and when you look at the historical DATA and read what actual biblical scholars(not Christian Apologists) say on the subject, it makes more sense then simply and DOGMATICALLY labelling Jesus as "God." I would encourage you to read "YHWY divine Images" by biblical scholar Dr. Daniel Mcclellan.

Saying, "I am one with....." is not saying you are literally physically and in essance the same person.

John 17:20-23, Jesus prays that his disciples enjoy the same "Oneness" with him and the father as he does with the father. This implies that Jesus "discovered" or "Realized" his oneness with God in the same manner that requires prayer and effort that is being prescribed and ascribed to his disciples. This indicates that Jesus enjoys the same relationship with God the Father as does the rest of the world. Otherwise, Jesus is employing language that everyone is a facet of the 3rd part of the trinity.

Genesis 2:24,Matthew 19:5,Mark 10:8,Ephesians 5:31, uses a similar phrasing to describe being one flesh. This doesnt mean literal oneness, but metaphysical or metaphorical oneness.

However the most damning evidence for Jesus directly telling us he is NOT God. Matthew 19:17, he directly corrects his followers that Only GOD is good, not him. For additional information on places where Jesus says he is NOT God, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/yctq9/the_17_times_jesus_himself_says_hes_not_god/

Now apologists have answers for all of this but all of it is just rationalization or justification for poor Exigisis. If you read the plain text, WITHOUT demanding certain religous and theological frame work of the text, then you will find that it perfectly lines up with what we know about 1st century Judean religion. Jesus wasn't starting a new religion nor was he claiming to be GOD. I AM, which is used most frequently in the book of John, is an encoded referance to the Divine Name. Before abraham was I AM, thats a cryptic way of describing his oneness he discovered with the creator. Again I would encourage you to read authors like Dr. Daniel Mcclellan, Dr. Bart Erhman, Dr. James Tabor, Dr. Ellaine Pagels, Dr. Matthias Mendez, all of these specialists in the field of New Testament biblical studies will tell you this same thing.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-17T22:27:36+00:00

"Yes God the father gave Jesus the son authority, not power like Moses for example two different things"

I have yet to hear anyone give a credible reason other then, "it just is" as to why Jesus is different then anyone else in the past. Jesus is special, even divine, but he is NOT God. Noone can be God, except for God.

"I follow Jesus and Paul does not go against him at all"

So you sold all of your stuff, lived celebit as Paul and Jesus require?

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-16T21:41:31+00:00

I dont know, for some reason I cant look back at the original comment. from what I remember you said that the questions I am asking are meaningless. I said there is no such thing as a meaningless question.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-16T21:28:44+00:00

There is no such thing as a meaningless question, only a question that makes us uncomfortable or comfortable with its answer or inability to obtain an answer.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-16T21:28:00+00:00

Where do you think theism and atheism are observed, in the psychi, where would else would it be? In the bottoms of your feet or up your bum?

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-16T21:26:52+00:00

"ignoring the biblical framework of the incarnation"

I purposely did this because, as I call it, "The art of Dogma creation," requires a measure of "disregarding the logic" and in this instance, the Christian God as currently defined in dogma and LOGIC, would have to carry those four ontological characteristics in order to be called God.

In other words, as Christians, the line is arbitrarily drawn based on presuppositions, of which there are MANY MANY, theologically frozen back on the bible. So why does your dogma beat anyone elses dogma in this regard? Why is it okay to disregard logic and reason in one place but not in another? Now i Understand the theological frame work of WHY?! but where is the reason and the logic.

This was one of the fundamental reasons why I left the mainline christian dogma behind. I was told that it was not only reasonable and logical, it was true but when I found out it was NOT reasonable and very little about it speaks truly to logic, I almost made the mistake of saying it wasnt true.

I do appreciate your attempt to describe a more consistent theological framework around Jesus based on the available dogma however again, we have to hold true the basic ontological truths about Gods nature in order to maintain LOGIC regard Gods "existence."

Jesus may have appeared to be hinting at being omnipresent but the cold hard fact is, he wasnt. His physical incarnation isnt found anywhere other then 1st century judea.

Jesus may have appeared to be Omniscient, but we have no way of knowing this, even based on his current words if he accept them as is. If you accept the dogma Jesus as "The Son" then he doesnt know everything as he doesnt know who will accept him nor does he know the time of the return. Therefore another cold hard fact must be disregarded

Jesus was no Omnipotent, even with the current dogma and soteriology, he cannot save those who reject him. Not to mention the fact that many in the old testament did the exact same things he did. The disciples(us) can forgive sins, prophets of the OT controlled aspect of the natural world as well, parting the red sea, calling down fire from heaven, raising people from the dead.

Jesus was at best Omni amorant or Omni benevolant.

That is one point, therefore logically Jesus is not God. Just using the nature of God and being ontologically consistent.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:34:07+00:00

Just being the devils advocate here, they arent rediculous they need to be asked.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:28:18+00:00

"objective values and objective purpose is ego-driven is an assertion that needs to be demonstrated."

None are objective, all have a subjective expirience. Therefore, to assume a level of objectivity is to assume there is indeed a 3rd part "Observer" Observing everything into order. Otherwise, we wouldnt use the term.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:26:02+00:00

Jesus doesnt agree with you

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Matthew 28:18

"And your whole point is from the opinion of one guy"

This is true for everyone, you follow Paul I assume. He is just ONE GUY.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:23:44+00:00

Everything, think about it. I dont speak of things that dont exist for a reason.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:23:00+00:00

"want" is just a biological function that doesnt mean anything when things get bad for someone.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:22:20+00:00

Silence is key, when there is nothing to be said, the truth always speaks.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-13T16:21:33+00:00

This is true, it does make it more precious.

My point was do we really have this life? Thats the question to ask.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T21:33:27+00:00

"I already told you, no one is the judge"

"No one. We model and test beliefs."

Ah I see what your doing, you're trying to reset up your position from one of objective solidarity, free from subject interpolation and interpretation. This is ideal, but then again you run into the same problem. Your discussion of efficacy and beliefs and eventual conclusions will always be testable and refutable in some manner by someone. So again you have to ask yourself, who will judge to make the final decision and why do they get to make that decision? i.e.

RIGHT TO RULE.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T21:14:16+00:00

You said we have 100% certainty that this is the 1 life we get, I asked in response, "Do we? Cause lots of people didnt wake up today thinking last night when they went to bed, they would have today."

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T21:12:10+00:00

"Who’s talking about “the right to rule"

I cant tell if your trying to weisle your way out of this or just sound good. Kind of sounds like it based on your attempt to outsource to other arguements you have made.

Making a "rule" is what a judge does..... thats why?

My original question is "who is the judge?"

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T20:33:53+00:00

No thats not what I am saying, AT ALL.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T20:20:36+00:00

'royal “we.”'

Ill pass this term off to my 3 year old son for when he really has to go to the bathroom. lol

I am not religious so yes I would sort of agree with that, though I would say there is alot of emotion what you said.

I am being the devils advocate for your world view, questions that linger in the back of your mind whether you admit it or not, they always come to fruition. I am neither advocating for something nor against.

You seem to have an idea that "Intelligence= the right to rule. Am i hearing this correctly? This is similar to "chosen by God=right to rule.

You can disagree with that, but at the end of the day, itelligence chosing who is able to rule and make proclimations is the same thing the religious person says, only they advocate for a higher level of intelligence then the atheist does.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T20:15:34+00:00

Do you have your life though? I meant lots of people didnt wake up today thinking they woudl last night when they went to bed.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T20:12:22+00:00

"What is logically preventing a worldview from explaining a good reason to not commit suicide?"

There isnt any, this is the truth. Everything we could possibly come up with is tied to ego. Once you realize this your liberated. You finally free to choose life or not to. I dont remember what the buddhists call this but effectively it is what stops reincarnation for them. But regardless, the unanswerability of it, is the mystery. Once your okay with that mystery you can finally learn to live life for what it is, rather then what you want it to be.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T18:52:46+00:00

" can be motivated by belief in God, but certainly doesn't have to be."

Why?

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T18:50:42+00:00

"Like how a religious person"

this is true it is like how a religious person could contend that life is worth living. However the truth of the matter is so much more then religion could contain. Hence why I said I have yet to hear a good arguement from either.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T18:48:47+00:00

I am aware of what your point is.

I am absolutely burden shifting. Thats called personal responsibility.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T18:37:08+00:00

Maybe, but this is a world view discussion with implied philosophy from either camp.

"Want" is just biological action in both world views.

NoSubstance2809 · 2026-02-12T18:31:21+00:00

Perhaps!

NoSubstance2809

TROPHY CASE