Jesus never claimed any more than the son of man. He's on the record as allegedly saying, with regard to the miracles, it is not I who does these things, but the Father in me.

Only fundamental fanatics try to make him more than a man born of woman. Others will swear blind that Donald is the second coming given how much mindless idolatry and worship is directed at him. By alleged (gun-totting) Christians.

They also claim that Jesus was God (a false premise) and believe that confers some authority! And just risible rubbish, given they never ever had such authority! Never!
Alan B.

Alan B,

<<Jesus never claimed any more than the son of man. He's on the record as allegedly saying, with regard to the miracles, it is not I who does these things, but the Father in me.>>

It is too bad you don't acquire biblical knowledge so you don't make ignorant statements like this. What you've said here is blatantly false.

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity:

(1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24);
(2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17);
(3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13);
(4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8; Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18);
(5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8);
(6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

Only your bigotry against biblical content has caused you to reach your erroneous conclusion.

Meanwhile why not check out the Illuminated Understanding of Saint Jesus of Galilee via these references:

http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/chapter_7.3.html#jesusandtheteaching

http://www.dabase.org/up-5-3.htm

Plus this reference which was also published with the title Reality Is All The God There Is

http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings

Also
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/spacetim.html

Here we go again, arguing over who has the correct sky fairy.

TheAtheist,

<<Here we go again, arguing over who has the correct sky fairy.>>

I hear the wind blowing; the thunder and lightning are flashing and clapping; the cyclone is blowing our way from your "sky fairy" fantasy.

Daffy,

<<Meanwhile why not check out the Illuminated Understanding of Saint Jesus of Galilee via these references: http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/chapter_7.3.html#jesusandtheteaching>>

Why don't you deal with the topics from my article instead of dishing up this red herring?

OzSpen

I take you to task on your confessed orthodoxy.
You may be an orthodox Christian in these times, but Christianity is historically built on shifting sands with orthodoxy.

Lack of consistency in its literature over two thousand years, has added confusion.
The belief in the trinity has been an evolutionary process. Explaining away the Christian God head from the orthodox stance as you do, relies on the belief of the infallibility of the biblical text as it now stands.

The Liberal view is Academic. It is more inclined to see the evolution of the Christian faith in term of history.
I see a danger in both views. The extreme of the liberal view is effectively disbelief in the creed, which I see as created by an overly questioning study for which it’s reward is lack of faith, followed by agnosticism; because the text through the years has been inconsistent and often tied into current historical events.

I think all orthodoxies should be questioned without risking loss of faith. You say your views are orthodox, but are they also fundamentalist by the same nature.
Fundamentalism led to the extreme of orthodoxy with the creation of Jimmy Jones, and his people’s Temple horror story.

Dan

<<Only fundamental fanatics try to make him more than a man born of woman.>>

Yes, mate, evangelical believers like me, who take the Scriptures seriously, know that you are dumping your presuppositions on us.

You don't know the Bible, do you? Why don't you own up to the logical fallacies you use whenever articles on this forum clash with your worldview, particularly Christian related topics?

Let's check the Scriptures: 'Jesus answered, “The fact is, before Abraham was born, I Am.” When he said this, they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid, and then he left the Temple area" (John 8:58-59).

We know from John chapter 5 that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. This did not please the Jewish leaders as they questioned Jesus about his violation of the Jewish law. Jesus claimed authority over the Sabbath.

Those Jews began trying to make Jesus stop these actions on the Sabbath. 'But he said to them, “My Father never stops working, and so I work too.” This made them even more determined to kill him. They thought it was bad enough that he was breaking the law about the Sabbath day. And now he was saying that God is his Father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD' (John 5:16-18).

Have you ever read this in Scripture? Peter called Jesus, “Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) Did Jesus support your view and emphatically deny he was the Son of God? Not at all! Jesus' response was: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven" (Matt 16:17).

Jesus emphatically affirmed he was the Son of God and not just the son of man. The Bible contradicts your view. I suggest you obtain a REAL theological education by taking the Bible seriously and examining its claims.

diver dan,

<<Christianity is historically built on shifting sands with orthodoxy.>>

Then you gave not one example of these "shifting sands", so you built a straw man fallacy.

<<Lack of consistency in its literature over two thousand years, has added confusion.>>

Have you read EVERYTHING of Christianity from the 1st to 21st centuries to conclude about the "lack of consistency". Or is this a fallacy of generalisation that springs forth from your worldview?

<<The belief in the trinity has been an evolutionary process.>>

False again! The trinitarian teaching is orthodox from the "us" of Genesis 1 to the full blown articulation in the New Testament. Ray Pritchard asked: "What is the Trinity? Christians in every land unite in proclaiming that our God eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those who deny that truth place themselves outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. Having said that, I admit that no one fully understands it. It is a mystery and a paradox. Yet I believe it is true", http://www.christianity.com/god/trinity/god-in-three-persons-a-doctrine-we-barely-understand-11634405.html.

The Trinity is not an "evolving" doctrine but one that is seen more clearly with progressive revelation in moving from Old Testament to New Testament.

<<The Liberal view is Academic.>>

No, the Liberal view changes what the Bible states. There are sound, evangelical, academic views of the orthodox Trinity: http://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/evangelical-statement-trinity-0.

See also, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-we-got-here-the-evangelical-trinitarian-milieu/

<<You say your views are orthodox, but are they also fundamentalist by the same nature.>>

I said my views were "evangelical". You have inserted "orthodox" and "fundamentalist."

<<Fundamentalism led to the extreme of orthodoxy with the creation of Jimmy Jones, and his people’s Temple horror story.>>

This is an ad hominem (guilt by association) fallacy. Here you have a negative view of my beliefs because of its supposed association with Jim Jones, that you view negatively. We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Thank you Spencer.

OzOen

One of the problems dealing with people on this site, is accommodating their hypersensitive natures .

I’m not about to trade scriptural references towards proving a theory I put forward to you, based on my observations over a lifetime on this subject.

But like it or not, the question of “who is Christ“ has as many answers as history has to any other subject.

So the difficulty with the answer is, the difficulty of who debates the question, and the biases that are natural in the mix. And historically, the question of who is Christ, has shifted through the years; that’s the point I make.

On another point you raised, which I noticed in your article, which was the differing opinions adding a different emphasis on scripture, between Liberals and evangelicals.
Unless there is consistency, then there are dangers in both views.
Jimmy Jones began his ministry with good intentions, but he lost the plot and strayed from tradition. Tradition is very much where the Liberals are. Viz Peter Selleck on this forum.

Dan

Yes Dean Phillip Jensen was in error in claiming that God was born at Christmas. The New Testament of the Bible is emphatic that it was Jesus who was born as a man approximately 2024 years ago.

There were several occasions when Jesus identified Himself as God and alluded to His eternal existence eg in John 8:58, but to say that God was born at Christmas is not correct.

This indiscretion is trivial however, compared with the mass of Christmas furphies believed by many at this time of the year. eg "Man will live forever more, because of Christmas Day".

diver dan,

<<But like it or not, the question of “who is Christ“ has as many answers as history has to any other subject.>>

If I want to know about "who is Hitler?"; "Who is Captain James Cook?"; "Who is Aristotle?", I go to the historical sources that deal with this historical information.

Since I want to know who Jesus Christ is, I go to the primary documents of the Gospels that deal with this information. I don't go to the pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter and the "Cross Gospel" which John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar promotes.

<<Tradition is very much where the Liberals are. Viz Peter Selleck on this forum.>>

To the contrary, the Anglican tradition is with the formulators of the 39 Articles, which provide a very evangelical statement of beliefs in The Articles of Religion 1562, http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion.

They are not Liberal Anglicanism but support evangelical, Bible-believing Anglicans. I suggest you get your facts straight on this topic.

The heart of the Anglican doctrines is evangelical and does not synthesise with the teaching of John Shelby Spong or Peter Sellick. See: http://rune.une.edu.au/web/bitstream/1959.11/18335/6/open/SOURCE04.pdf.

OzSpen

*... Since I want to know who Jesus Christ is, I go to the primary documents of the Gospels that deal with this information...*

my point exactly.

And the authenticity of that literature is not infallible is it.
For the first twenty odd years of Christianity there is no literary record of what they believed..

In the end, it was so confused with congregations of splinter groups, innovations were necessary to focus attention on what was to be the core belief system.

That makes the current belief system simply an average forged by a consensus of the powerful; of which the Anglican Church is very much up there historically.

Dan

diver dan,

<<And the authenticity of that literature is not infallible is it. For the first twenty odd years of Christianity there is no literary record of what they believed.>>

You overlook some fundamentals in understanding basic Christianity:
1. All historical literature comes with a "not absolutely, 100% sure of the content." This applies to Manning Clark's History of Australia, the record of the ransacking of Jerusalem in A D 70, the birth, writings and death of Aristotle, and the biblical literature. It's the nature of historical science. We weren't there, so we depend on ancient sources.

2. Since you reject the supernatural God and his power to oversee the writing of Scripture, you won't accept what God has stated: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). When something is THEOPNEUSTOS (breathed out by God) it emanates from the absolutely honest, pure and just Lord God.

3. How did God's Word reach human beings? What was the process of how the infallible God could produce inerrant Scripture in the beginning? "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Without your accepting the nature of God as revealed in creation and Scripture, I don't expect you to accept God's Word of describing how we get reliable Scriptures.

(continued)

(continuation)

diver dan,

For the first 20+ years of Christianity, there IS a literary record and that's contained in the Book of Acts. Leading Australian ancient historian (he has taught ancient history at Macquarie University) has a 2005 publication I have on my desk, "The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years" (Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company).

Barnett's conclusion is "that the historian is able, with confidence tempered with critical caution, to make use of the data in Acts in pursuit of the task of historical reconstruction.... Few have so clearly stated the importance of Acts for early Christianity as Meyer, who was himself critical of Christianity.... We have the completely inestimable advantage ... of having access to the portrayal of the beginning stages of the development directly from the pen of one of its co-participants. That alone ensures for the author an eminent place among the significant historians of world history" (cited in Barnett 2005:204).

OzSpen

Sorry for the delay in response here. I just tonight noticed your reply.
Thanks for that.

What I’m not doing is nit picking a fight with you on any issue.

But in the current era of enlightenment, we must be confident in our belief systems to accept that science has taken the high road in researching the historic path of Christianity, by objectively and without bias I believe, presenting us with some uncomfortable truths.
Fitting Christ into a trilogy of Gods, and calling the conglomerate one God, is a hard sell.

I also believe the New Testament is more an example of failure than of enlightenment, without at least laying it beside known historical events.

But I want to say, I enjoyed your article, and it’s concerns are valid. Maybe the paragraph above is also a reason for declining church attendances.

Dan