....and does it matter?

The single most important question of history.

We date our calendar from his advent. Approximately 30% of the world profess him as Son of God, and have structured their theological foundations on that claim.

Perhaps this question would not be so vexing if it did not raise ideas about 'how many Gods'?
If Jesus is God, then... who is The Father ? How can God talk to himself unless he is at least 2 persons? If Jesus is 'God', how could he 'die', why would he say “My God my God, why have you forsaken me” while on the cross?

This question also, is the dividing line between Islam and Christianity. If Jesus is 'truly' God in the flesh, and His claims are founded in truth, then clearly no other faith of any description is acceptable to God. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me” said Jesus: (John 14:6)

This may seem 'arrogant' 'intolerant' 'exclusivist' etc.. but this is a charge to which most if not all faiths which proclaim 'salvation' can be subjected. The major contenders in the 'Salvation' stakes are Islam and Christianity, and in each case there are sects and different traditions.

We can explore these and many other questions in the course of this thread.

SOURCES:
-Gospel_of_John.
-Scholarly_literature.
Below is a survey of some scholarship
The survey is not written or compiled from a 'conservative' or fundamentalist standpoint.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/john-survey.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Questions we can pursue are:

Is Jesus 'God' ... i.e. God the Father?
Is Jesus God the Father 'manifest in the flesh'?
Is Jesus 'Separate from yet one with' the Father ? (and Spirit)
Trinity ?

PROPHETIC BACKGROUND.

Psalm 22
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=22&version=31

Why did Jesus cry out on the Cross "Why have you forsaken me" ?

Please read the above link, for the answer.

The approach I will take is to focus on what scripture itself says about Jesus, but restrict the focus just to the Gospel of John, in order to make the topic more managable. This source alone is probably the strongest, and other material either complements it, or should be seen in the light of it. (such as passages suggesting a lower status than 'God' for Jesus)

John 8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=31

The whole chapter should be read for context, but the key passage is in verse 58

"I tell you the truth, before Abraham was.. I AM" The response of his listeners, was to immediately try to stone him. (why ?)

John 10
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&version=31

Verses 22-42

Note the words 'AGAIN' the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Why?

Same reason they desired to stone him in the previous passage.
They knew exactly what he was saying. In this passage he speaks clearly 'I am God's Son'......

These passages have, and will continue to, divide the world. But of one thing we can be absolutely sure, that in Context, taking all the information into account, as we would with any docuement, we are faced with the Son of God.. God the son.

For the Islamic view, see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5TW7vLJQJw
Note, how Mr Deedat agrees with much about Jesus, but, sadly, he either misunderstands or misinterprets the above passages in the light of the Quran.
Beware..this man is a master of the 'straw man', he also uses invalid humor to try to make his case. :)

"Is Jesus....God?"

No.

... Not before the fourth century theists gave him a promotion.

The idea of Jesus as a god developed over three generations, after Nicaea [325]. The Arthanasian creed did state that Jesus was divine but did explain how Logos became the same substance, as the Father, without their being a second god. The notion of homoiousion was invented by Marcellus, Bishop of Ancrya in 339, wherein, we have Western Christian notion of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Herein, The Christians' God's Ousia is unknowable but the Trinity is a revealed as a manifestation of the unfathomable.

Alternatively, Arius would have held that while Jesus may have been instilled with divine apatheia; Jesus, if he were a god, could not be a perfect example of humanity. He would have to be human; else being a god, the deck is stacked in Jesus' favour. Only a human could live a perfect human life. Moreover, this case puts a fly in the ointment of a sinless "human's" substititionary ransom.

Islam from its beginnings took Jesus to be an inportant prophet, but focused more on its deeper roots to Abraham. Originally, Muhammad directd that Muslims pray facing Jerusalem, but when the Jews made a mockery of the lack of sophistication in Islamic religious studies, the direction of prayer was chnaged to Mecca, because the [ancient even then] Kabah held early assocations with Abraham.

In the region where Jesus lived and taught: Between 300 BCE - 100 CE, there were plenty of Messiahs a foot [ahem], of which, Jesus [Joshua aka Ieous] was merely one. These wondering people were presumably "humans" with concerns about Greek then Roman occupation. Jesus may have been differentiated teaching about a more ethereal Kingdom, but qualities that would make him human alone don't make him god by definition, whereas, as noted above, were he a [part] god; his example and ransom become meaningless

"Is Jesus ...God"?
Please excuse me while I throw and intimate wobble with myself! What kind of question is this? Where have you been for the past 2000 years?
You are desperately in need of a thing called a "church" normally run by a "preacher or pastor" or for that matter, any church goer. There are plenty of them and are willing to help those like yourself who seem "lost" or confused.
Yerrss, there are many contradictive passages in the bible and the good book has been re-written umpteen times, so we must allow for error somewhere along the way, especially since the bible was translated "only he knows" how many times, as far as I know and it's not that I know much about it, was translated from Hebrew. In the day, how many people knew how to speak English to enable the translation to what it is today, we now have those who are "reading between the lines" in the bible, in a desperate attempt to unravel those contradictive areas.

Fascinating. I must thank Oliver for his erudite contributions to these theological threads - in which I don't for the most part participate, but do read sometimes with interest.

"Homoiousion": Now, there's a word I've never come across before... thanks for that!

The idea that there were numerous "Messiahs" lurking around the Middle East strikes me as being quite plausible. The consubstantiation business seems to me to be particularly inspired hocus pocus.

Great stuff. I think that the answer to Boazy's question is that of course Jesus is God, if you really want him to be :)

Hi Oliver
nice to hear from you.

May I point out what these councils did, is clarify in the face of specific false teaching and heresy the nature of our Lord.
If it were not for people like Arius or the Gnostics, or Marcion, or
Sabellianism
Monophysitism
Adoptionism
Nestorianism
Apollinarianism
Donatism
Pellagiamism
etc..
The councils would not have been neccessary.
It was only as these heretics went their own way, and presumably by force of charismatic personality, and persuasive tongue, managed to build some kind of following.
So, the nature of Christ was clarified on the basis of the full counsel of Scripture, which includes the passages which appear to disagree "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)

Interstingly, such passages were not considered a threat to Christs deity, or (according to those who claim the Scriptures have been "hashed and re-hashed so many times") the 'Church' might have modified or removed them ?

The main goal of this thread, was basically to show from the Scriptures which are used by those who oppose Christs deity, that they in fact support it, rather than deny it.

Hence a correct understanding of such passages will equip the weaker Christian and the less knowledgable agnostic who may be in the process of being seduced by 'other' religions.

It also is a wake up call to other religions concerning the true nature of Christ.

by way of anecdote, I recommend a viewing of this remarkable video of a former PLO sniper, who hated Jews, who is now a Christian.
Look at the peace of heart written on his face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwj0KY7wwXk&mode=related&search=
Contrast that with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3I1vGLm5Lg
Before you jump on me about the content, pls realise that the man who is now Christian in the first Vid DID this prior to knowing Christ.

I still want to know why three dirty old men turned up on the night of JC"s birth with gifts and what Joseph thought when it was explained to him that he wasn't the dad. Very suspicious indeed.

When entering this thread, I know for sure that words being used, are another way of swearing and pretty much doubt, that without a dictionary on hand, more than half the people who use this thread do not understand what the heck you lot are on about! Sorry, is this thread only for those who in fact like to feel they are religious by quoting some hyperthetical grunge so as for others not to understand like myself?, who, being Uni educated to Phd level, try speaking English instead of in "tongues", for others less educated and not into sparring with words, for those to also enjoy this forum.
Do I sense a tinge of religious snobism in this thread? Get back to the original topic of discussion, that being: Is Jesus..God? NO he isn't, and thats from a Phd! Is it at all possible, without sounding too dry, for myself and others who are interested in this thread,to not have to keep running for the ruddy dictionary? People are my game and to understand them is in itself an art and profession.

Dear Spanky
apologies if the language sounded somehow snobbish.
I'm interested in which field your phd is in-care to enlighten ?

Let me re-iterate, I cannot prove Christ Jesus is God apart from the clear understanding of the scriptures. If one begins such an examination of the issue with the predisposition that they are unreliable, then, no amount of 'proving' or arguing from Scripture will alter that situation.

My starting point is this:

Based on the scriptures as they stand, an in particular 'John's Gospel' can we show that the Lord Jesus understood Himself to be 'God' or.. God's Son?

I believe the answer is yes and yes. I'm more concerned with the correct understanding of the text, than with the issue of its reliability. (in this thread)

The reason for this approach, is that some non Christians "use" this Gospel to seek to show Jesus was NOT God, and have built a whole religion on that assumption. Further, Christians as a class of people, are condemned outright "May Allah destroy them" (Sura 9:30) for believing that Christ is Son of God.

So, this issue is very important, and does indeed divide the whole world.
Thanx for your contribution, but why not engage one step further, and look at the texts mentioned, and I would appreciate your assessment of the intepretation even if just as a 'document'.

In other words, regard this text (John 8 and John 10) as 'documents' which are similar to others about historical figures and which require interpretation. If you were a historian, and you encountered these documents, and were aware of "Historian SOandSO" who takes the view "The central character believed xyz about himself" you may like to concur or disagree on the grounds of sound principles of interpretation.

Dear Ranier
not being a mind reader with deep historical penetration, I am at a loss to answer that :)

No God ever existed if they did what one is the true one?
If one is true why the others?
Why do those who believe say our God is the only God?
We can if we wish name tens of Gods man has invented who gives us the right to say the God of the Jews cares for us? is the only true God?
In truth how many who claim to be Christians are in fact?
How many go to church?
Some speak of God only in times of great need , a clear pointer to why we have Gods
BD you set out a threat to bring about debate that is commendable but some answers will not please you.
I find it hard to think the king of the Jews is a God but understand some need a crutch to lean on.

Boaz,

Can't you keep the poor Aussie Mossie out of your theology debate?
I mean why don't you pick on someone your size? Jewish, Bhuddists,atheists, all the other beliefs who don't believe in your faith altogether.

Muslims believe in Jesus pbuh teachings as well. We just disagree on who he is. But why would that be a point of animosity?
Why are we the only 'other' you see? If you can't love us, can you be fair and distribute your hate evenly : -)

Peace,

CJMorgan,

Thank you for your kind words. I think History sometimes can help to gain a measure of focus, even if one cannot dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.

BOAZ,

Greetings.

The Romans with all their religions were allowing various believers, live and let live, and, hedging their bets. Its was a bit like a religious equivalent to multiculturism. Monothesism was seen to be exclusive and antisocial and dangerous [offended other gods].

The growth of Christianity, after Constantine, would have been influenced by Christians being ligitimised, and therefore the Religion gained greater social mobility.

What about God the Mother? Yahweh's mother? :)

Interesting question

The full-blown Trinitarian doctrine took centuries to evolve, as did the Chalcedonian insistence that Jesus is both fully man and fully divine. Both can set heads spinning even today.

Picking John’s Gospel as your benchmark is a bit sneaky – of all the scriptures it has the most overt and deliberate agenda for presenting Jesus as God.

John was probably the last Gospel to be written. One theory is that the earlier the scriptures, the less developed their sense of Jesus’ divinity, and the later they ascribe it to him.

Paul’s letters include the earliest NT writing. He seems to think Jesus was an ordinary human who only entered into sonship only his resurrection, at God’s initiative: “… who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead …” (Romans 1.3-4).

Peter’s proclamation “God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36) also maybe reflects a view of the early church that Jesus’ status was something conferred on him, perhaps after the crucifixion, rather than being an innate characteristic from birth.

Mark’s is the earliest Gospel. It’s most common title identifies Jesus as “Son of Man” and Mark uses the phrase “son of God” only once, at Jesus’ baptism, where he seems to acquire the title on God’s nomination for the first time. Mark has no birth story.

Luke and Matthew introduce elaborate (and very different) nativity myths to establish Jesus’ divinity from his birth.

John, of course, opens with that magnificent poem echoing Genesis 1 and claiming a pre-existing divinity for Jesus from “the beginning”. Stunning poetry, fascinating theology, but not necessarily historically definitive.

I’m not arguing that Jesus’ divinity is pure invention – the basis for both the Trinity and Chalcedon are certainly there in the NT (and indeed hebrew scriptures). But they took a while to work out, and indeed we’re still working them out. The most interesting and important question is what do these formulae point to.

Rhian,

Why would the [divine] Son of God need to be Baptised? Presumably, no original sin?

good question – this was clearly a bit of an embarrassment to later gospel writers (Matthew has John trying to refuse to baptise him, Luke and John kind of skip over it). Some writers argue that the fact it’s embarrassing suggests its authenticity.

It’s unlikely, though, that baptism was interpreted then exactly as it is now. It symbolises a new beginnings and is a public display of Jesus’ identification with John and his cause (maybe Jesus had been a disciple of JtB himself) and with “all of the people”.

New beginnings, solidarity, a symbolic passing through the waters of the re(e)d sea and Jordan – all eliciting divine approval. Much more interesting than focussing on sin alone, don’t you think?

God is only a human concept.With the development of our intellect we may well find something better to explain our inadaquacies.

A human Jesus is a far more powerful concept than an immortal infallible God,since humans must evolve and rise to the challenge,while God has reached the nemisis of perfect existence.How boring!

My next question for David Boaz is;Does his God evolve?

Dear fellow posters
what a rich thread this is. To Oliver, (thanx Rhian for those insights) please look up Wiki on any point such as the Baptism of Jesus etc, they don't have a 350 word limit :)

FH. you scallywag. I am hoping that you will truly read John and comprehend the words there.. John 8 and John 10.
"hate" :) thereeeee you go a-again. 2night I was at gym, my best most warmest buddy is a Shia Muslim from Iran. I'm hoping (when I get a house) to invite him and his family for a meal. Its not about hate of "Muslims"...for the umpteenth zillionth time.
But the events of the past few days have underlined a mantra of mine..

-RADICALS. (you know the rest)
-Estimated 3000 Muslim young people in Sydney 'vulnerable' to radicalization. Survey done by a MUSLIM !
But hey..I was not born yesterday.

a) Yes..I know the federal government funded the study.
b) I also note the 'timing' of this 'sudden terror threat' as it is being portrayed in NewsLimited tabloids.

Just on that, a cynic might say 'Aboriginal crisis is 'Tampa2' and
3000 baby terrorists is 'Children Overboard 2'

He is a sly fox the old rodent :)

Arjay. The thing which did 'evolve' was the fine tuning of various doctrines considered 'orthodox' due to heresies which picked loopholes in the previous version.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

That link shows some evolving of the creed. (But God remained the same :) The evolution of the creed is mainly in tightening up some historical bits, and reference to the Holy Spirit is expanded in the 381 version.

"Does his God evolve?" - Ajay

Yes. From the God of Abraham to the God of Moses to the teaching of one Jewish Messiah [Jesus], to the Hellenisation of Jesus [Paul], to the institutionalisation of Jesus [Constantine], to the reinterpretations from/after Augustine to Vatican II. Within that religion, we see borrowings from other relations and schisms and denominationalism.

A key disadvantage of Christian monotheism is it places multitudes of the "others" in opposition: Conflict. A key advantage of an individual-god relationship in a monotheist religion is its moral code and rites exist across the rise and fall empires: It is sustainable. Together, with these elements, we see tensions between Islam and Christianity, relatively strong across the centuries. Except, perhaps, where both are overwhelmed in another culture [China, India].

Boaz,

It’s strange you can’t see the difference. I guess your position is OK as long as you accept it if it’s reciprocated (ie if your Iranian friend tells you “your faith suck but Islam loves you Boaz”).

The article re the 3000 young Muslims in Australia caught my attention as well.
I think the US and Australia are doing a better job than the UK security in terms of getting local communities support. I can’t see the local community support in the UK with the home grown incident and the foreign ones.

Youth problems are about managing them so I guess further analysis is needed in above figure so the government can address through program management (ie intellectual engagement, motivation, counselling, re-education, etc.).

Maybe you are right re-timing, fear can be scarecrow to influence elections .

Rhian,

Thank you. I wonder how the Quelle reconstruction dealt with the Baptism of Jesus? As you suggest, his Baptism could merely been identification with a reference group or compliance to a more generalised sect rite. Between second and fourth centuries CE, the rite was all over the place. Over time it seems to have been rolled back from adult to infant as the intercession of the Church seems to mediate in matters religious, especially for the RCs.

Thanks Oliver.

Luke seems to have re-written the story so Jesus is not baptised by John (maybe to delineate their ministries more clearly), and Matthew has added his elaborations with John’s protests, so it’s hard to guess what Q might have said about Jesus’ baptism. Mark is probably closest to actual events, but exactly what people thought was happening and what it meant is hard to guess. You’re right, baptism was quite a common ritual at the time.

It’s also highly questionable whether Mark (or the other synoptics) meant that Jesus was divine when they called him “son of God”. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the title is used for mortals. In fact it's striking how little the Gospels other than John have to say about what Jesus' Messiahship means.

I mostly agree with your points about God evolving – or rather, our understanding of, and relationship with, God - and the unfortunate tendency of Christianity to equate monotheism with exclusiveness. I also agree on the importance of the individual-God relationship.

I may be more inclined than you, however, to value the church – or at least membership of a faith tradition. The insights we have now are derived from the intellectual and moral struggles of the past 3,000+ years. It is precisely because we are evolving that we need institutions to carry and interpret the insights of the past into the future (even though I’ll admit they do it in an imperfect and self-serving fashion). And Christianity is not just an intellectual exercise – we need collective worship, the symbolism of liturgy, and the pastoral context and capacity for action of a community

Hello Rhian,

Thanks.

Like you, I do appreciate the Church(es) has provided a means of establishing a moral code and providing an organising principle. Some scientific models such "design" owe much to creation myths.

Moreover, the performance of the various reference groups is capable of establishing a sense of the Self for the believer and allows for sometimes principles to reinforced by "indwelling" [Polanyi] with the performance.

Guess the difference with sucular humanism and the more moral aspects of some religions, is not so much what is seen to be right behaviour, rather the reason people need to behave rightly. The former requires an Overseer and the later Personal Responsibility.

The danger with religion is Churches and Priesthoods can push buttons and pull levers that would have others perform behaviours, often odds with the faith's kernel moral codes "in the name of God":
A Church with a priesthood, wherein the congregation "follow". Said presumed agents of God have lead to the miseries of the ages.

Guess it is difficult to trace Biblical events before Mark, remembering the gospel writers are using [authoritative] nom de plumes, as was the convention of the period.

BOAZ,

What do you feel about the Isalmic concept of "The People of the Book", which would seem quite a comprise for a monothesistic religion?

Earlier, we touched on Jesus and the Money Lenders and The House of The Lord. By flipping-out was Jesus not identifying The House of The Lord as an Icon? Jesus must have been Russian Orthodox ;).

Thanks Oliver

Couldn’t agree more about churches trying to impose their agendas and the primacy of (educated) conscience. That’s what I found so offensive about Pell’s recent stem cell foray – not that the church has things to say about politics, nor even that it seeks to influence its members, but that Pell tried to use the threat of religious sanctions to coerce members into voting against their consciences. Utterly out of order and, happily, unsuccessful.

Paradoxically, I believe the original Jesus movement was a reaction against much the same type of religious authoritarianism, though it quickly evolved its own hierarchy of function and authority, and tried to back-cast its interpretations to its stories about Jesus’ words and deeds. Hence we should be very careful about assuming that Jesus actually said what (for example) John’s gospel has him saying, still less that we can be confident in interpreting the meaning of titles such as “son of God”, “son of man”, “holy one of god” etc.

It’s hard to imaging the faith having survived without some type of institutionalisation (I started a discussion about this with Boaz_David on another forum but left off as it was a bit off-topic). But we much always guard against the compromises and pitfalls that entails.

Still, taking the bible “seriously but not literally”, it and the lives it points to have an awful lot to teach us.

"It’s hard to imaging the faith having survived without some type of institutionalisation" - Rhian

That's right. Else, another group cum cult cum sect would have become Western/Orthodox religion. With creed, an institution sets parameters and instills top-down interpretation. When was the last time someone midst a Christian service interrupted the priest to say "let's stop here for a minute mate" and discuss this rite for a while? Contrarily, when lecturing, I invite interruptions. Likewise, the notion that a Pope speaking ex cathedra or the collected works (The Bible) of a Council being infallible is unacceptable

Oliver.. Jesus 'flipping out' ... please look at the passage closely, and note 'it is written' then compare this with Luke 24:44-49 and consider it again. :) thanx.

I note you 'religio/racism there too "Russian Orthodix" *smack* :)

Rhian... you said:

"In fact it's striking how little the Gospels other than John have to say about what Jesus' Messiahship means."

Perhaps they were not so concerned with 'proving' or promoting the patently obvious ?

Mark 2:5

When Jesus saw their faith, he said ... "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

... But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

Note:

1/ The Religious leaders understood that Him forgiving sin is a claim to Deity.
2/ Jesus KNEW that such a statement by Him would produce that outcome.
3/ He healed the man to demonstrate his true authority was from above.
4/ We see the following concepts which appear partly contradictory.
a) "Forgiving" a divine act.
b) "Son of Man" a messianic title.
c) "I have authority on earth" suggesting that it was 'allocated by another'

In trinitarian terms, we are seeing here what is described as the 'hyperstatic union'.

So, Mark is quite clear that Christ Jesus is 'God'.(the Son)

One reason I personally get excited by all this is my own experience of healing. It was as quick and as dramatic as for this cripple, but not on the same scale. A lingering fracture.. healed.. instantly. Who can describe the feeling ? It was like a dream.. where you are flooded with all the love and warmth that you desperately would like in real life.. and I did.

Blessings.

BOAZ,

ME A RACIST?

"I note you 'religio/racism there too 'Russian Orthodix' " - BOAZ

I was joking about Jesus' religion based on his actions. Actually, I had the iconic St Issacs Cathedral in mind when, I made my remark:

My point was/is Jesus (a) had bad temper and (b) treated a building as an icon. Maybe, he didn't flip-out every day, nor, on most days did he believe a building was the house of a god (blasemy). Even if Jesus didn't act like this 99.999%, he cannot be said to have a led a "perfect" life. Perfect means no slip-ups. None.

I haven't had the time to check this... Jesus -as an adult- smiting of a tree. Most parents would reprimand their children for exhibiting such malevolent behaviour. Hope he didn't, man or god.

Nothing against the Russians. The same cannot be said of the Christians directing the building of St. Isaacs. Criminals were not forgiven, instead thousands under forced labour in custody died constructing the dome. I feel sad for the dead Russians, not the Christians building the icon.

Herein, it is the Christian Church, not me, that is racist and non-compromising, persecuting the pagans*, the crusades [several times] and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews [several times].

[*The brilliant philosopher and mathematician Hypatia being led by a church lector to her death, being a significant historical example of the persecutions of pagans:

"On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypatia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the reader (sic.) and a troop of savage and merciless [Christian, added] fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames." - Gibbon]

US Christians and the US Christian press suppressed Einstein's [an agnostic] address to Lincoln University, which condemned racisms. Further, I suspect most members of the Klu Klux Klan were Protestant Christians.

BOAZ: Can you point to any Muslims or Freethinkers in the KKK?

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

If Jesus were God and was tempted by the devil, who would have supplied the architecture of the objects of the temptation? Jesus himself?

Think about it. Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, and, the Father is responsible the potential for all physical and non-physical possibilities.

Were the devil able to create kingdoms, the means to be able to do so, must have been provided by the creator of the materal, related physics, whatever. The devil cannot make it happen unless Jesus and his godhead friends allow it. Hence, Jesus would have been complicit in the devil having the means to deliver. Else, if the devil controls some independent physics or realm, then the Jesus is not god or we have polythesism.

Boaz: "One reason I personally get excited by all this is my own experience of healing. It was as quick and as dramatic as for this cripple, but not on the same scale. A lingering fracture.. healed.. instantly. Who can describe the feeling ? It was like a dream.. where you are flooded with all the love and warmth that you desperately would like in real life.. and I did."

Sorry Boazy, but given your record of disingenuous comments and outright porkies in this forum, forgive me for not believing you. As they say in the justice system, you are hardly a "reliable witness".

The biblical healing story is undoubtedly a mythical account concocted by credulous others with similar pathologies with respect to the truth. You can believe what you like, but you really should desist from proclaiming your delusions as actual, objective truth.

Hello BOAZ,

1. The fig tree thing: Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-21. Some scholars have addressed the issue of figs being out of season at the time of Jesus' petulent wobbly. Some others have tried to engineer his actions back to the OT and back into prior times, Jeremiah 29 & Hosea 9.

The tree thing, the temple thing, not honouring his mother. Doesn't seem "perfect" to me. Appears he had problem with his temper and bad attitude, despite the Sermon on the Mount stuff.

2. If you have before and after X-rays of the fracture and the un-facture, togther showing a miracle; I suggest you send these items, via a public notary, to James Randi, who is offering a million dollar plus incentive for physical evidence of a miracle.

3. Did Jesus commit suicide?

4. As you probably know the Latin church and the Orthodox church disagreed on whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father "or" the Father and the Son and in 1054 CE the Latins wanted added "Filioque" to the older creed. This problematic. Both can't be right. Moreover, accepting a sequence of events, would suggest a time when the Spirit did not exist in some heavenly realm, which one would suppose is outside of causality and our space-time continuum.
Was god perfect before the Holy Spirit entered the picture? If, by definition, god is unchanging why does its godhead change?

5. The Son of God concept goes back to Ancient Egyptians centuries before JC became a superstar :). Horus [the god, not our thread friend] was righteous and "the only beloved son of Osiris (Serapis)" [Wells]. He visited Earth and later " 'ascended to the Father' to become one with the father" to intercede on behalf of sinners with the father [Wells]. When did all this happen? About 300 BCE!

[It is interesting that Constantine seemingly melded the Christian/Jesus [Horus-like] godhead to a sun god too, over six hundred years later, Sol Invictus.]

BOAZ,

Greetings.

Above, I provided horrific account of Christians persecuting the pagans. Barker provides an account of the Christians, which echos Gibbon's account from centuries prior.

Of the First Crusade on 15 July 1099:

"The slaughter was terrible; the blood of the conquered ran down the streets, until men splashed in blood as they rode. At nightfall, 'sobing excess of joy' the [Christian] crusaders came to the Sepulchre from their treading of the wine press, and put their blood-stained hands together in prayer" [to Jesus] - Barker ed. Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

Hi Oliver.
quite a bit to grapple with there mate.

1/ Jesus not perfect.
a) He had 'fits of temper' ? .. Yes.. on one occasion, the cleansing of the temple. This was fulfillment of prophecy, I find this an easy one.
b) He did not honor his parents? Who is his Father ? :) I don't have a problem with this one either.
c) He cursed the fig tree. This one... I find difficult. I can hypothesize all manner of explanation, but it would just be me speculating. See this discussion please:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/fig_tree.html

I don't on any of these points find them pointing to an imperfect Jesus.

2/ TEMPTATION: The physics etc.
A very difficult issue to reduce into 'physical realites' to be honest. But I see no need for it. The Scriptures do not tell us all the spiritual dynamics of God, Jesus, Satan, Heaven, Hell, but they do provide sufficient for salvation.

In regard to Jesus claim of Sonship, and Messiahship, and being our Saviour, I refer you to his signs. Please read John 20:31

CJ (and Oliver) your response to my healing account is understandable, and to be expected. I hold no ill will about your skepticism. Let me just point out though, that (Oliver) mentioning that bloke who will pay a Million dollars, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. God is not a sideshow, nor does He need to pander to human 'tests' like that. There is plenty of evidence if he wanted to seek it out. Including x-rays etc. But I doubt that there would ever be in the world an example of a 'staged' test for God.
-Atheists challenge Christian pastor to 'heal' someone.
-They find a person crippled from birth.
-Photographs are taken.
-Pastor is told "OK..GO FOR IT"

*think* about that :)

"If a blind man leads a blind man, won't they both fall into a pit" ?
Said Jesus.

OLIVER.. I was ribbing you about the 'racism' thing :) not serious.

Regarding the crusades etc.. that was 'geopolitics with a religious side salad' at work.

All you need do, is read the Gospels, Acts,and Pauls letters to see how far that is from being 'Christian'.

The point which CAN be made though, is that when a religion is based on 'human' solutions to international problems, you will see a terrible outcome, the crusades were just one example, Al Qaeda is another, but even back to the founding of Islam, it was on that same basis. "Human" methods.. war, attacks, invasions.. lots of sex...
and ALL with the religious authorization.

Show me an 'authorization' or.. an example of military conquest or even military methods in the Lord Jesus... it's impossible :)

And please don't dredge up Luke 19:27 where it is the KING in the parable who says "bring those enemies of mine here and slay them"
Jesus himself is not saying that for his own sake. (Though, it does point to the day of Judgement)

BD, I notice you again narrowed the field to Jesus. I assume that you won't accept examples from his dad of which there are plenty, if so what do you do with John 10:30 (for those not familiar with it Jesus says "I annd the Father are one").

On the other hand if you do believe that Jesus is one with the father then examples of authorisation for military conquest, slaughter of children and other non-combatants are rife.

Over to you - is Jesus one with the father?

R0bert

"Regarding the crusades etc.. that was 'geopolitics with a religious side salad' at work." - BOAZ

1. It was Church directed miltiary politics. The Pope diminished the capacity of kingdoms to militarily challenge Rome by having armies deployed elsewhere.

Other matters:

2. I have said before in other discussions that God, Jesus, Scriptures and the Church/Christians need to treated as separate constructs. That said, one needs, one needs to recognise that the idea of a Church and Priesthood is "outside" of Jesus. It was thousands of years before JC established as a means of control over people and wealth.

3. Before looking at JC historically one needs to do away with or treat with great suspicion evrything from Paul to today, especially Nicaea. The institutionalised Christian Church will interpret the scriptures to its benefit. JC and the rest of us are the "side salad".

4. Jesus did smite cities. Recall that Jesus forms part of the Christian godhead and is at one with his father. Jehovah was very active in a military sense and an ethnic cleansing sense, so by way of the unity of the Trinity, so was Jesus. One needs to accept this or drop the Trinity.

5. Looking for to replies to my questions and points raised.

6. One can't critique the Islamic clerics and promote Christian clerics. They are both tarred with the same brush.

I'll leave it here, as my points are stating to pile up and I await a response to several others.

Regards,

O.

Boaz,

Below is a Deedat lecture on 'Christ in Islam' in an open forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4XeUOi-sPs

Interested in your views.

Peace

Robert,

We are agreed on the matter of Jesus in the godhead and the OT horrors. Well, what does expect of a tribal volcano/war god? If goes is at one with, then he carries the OT baggage.

Also,

"The Saviour was born in the middle of the night between Saturday and Sunday, 24th and 25th of December, 272 BCE, and according to those who believed in Him from an Immaculate (Anahid) Virgin (Xosidhag) somewhere not far from lake Hamin, Sistan, Lived for 64 years among men, and ascended to His Father Ahura Mazda in 208 BCE." - Moghdan [Professor of Iranian Studies]

Jesus: If god or not god, seemlingly a plagarist :).

Oliver, that's old territory for BD and I. Probably a pointless response, we've been over it so many times before. BD finds it convenient to put aside the OT when he wishes to bag Islam for the violence in the Quran. Whilst there may be christains who don't believe in the trinity and Jesus having a place in the godhead I don't think that BD is one of them.

For those who do believe that Jesus is one with the god of the OT and who accept verses like Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change" claiming that Jesus had no history of violence or bloodshed at best displays a poor understanding of the consequences of the idea of the trinity. That seems unlikely in a bretho who is a former missionary.

R0bert

Not at all Robert. I've told you umpteen times that the incidents in the O.T. were specific judgements by God...not by man. That is the diff. The violence of 'possessing the land' must be seen against the backdrop of the level of inhumanity and sin among the peoples displaced. Sodom and Gomorrah are just 2 examples.

Oliver.

You said

1. It was Church directed miltiary politics. Yes, quite right I'm sure. Now.. all you need to show is how the 'Church' of the day in question, relied on the Lords own life and words to justify it, and we have solved the problem.

2. Yes, Jesus, said "I and the Father are one" .. correct. So, in that sense, Jesus was indeed involved in the judgements in the Old Testament, but from the position of the Godhead. "The glory which I had with you before the foundation of the world" he also said.
The events in the Old Testament, need also to be seen in the light of the unfolding story of salvation history.
Abraham-> Isaac -> Jacob-> 12 tribes-> Nation -> Disobedience -> Punishment, Restoration, Remnant, Redemption in the new covenant in Christ. That's a lotttt of history in 2 lines.

Other points ? I cannot adequately debate each one in this limited space. I offer you the blind man :) "I was blind, but now I see"

FH I probably have listened to that Deedat vid, but I'll have another look. I'll get back 2 you on it.
His style is quite untenable. He invents a straw man "Did Jesus ever say "I am God"...worship me" then he attacks it.
cheers.

Hello BOAZ,

"... all you need to show is how the 'Church' of the day in question, relied on the Lords own life and words to justify it, and we have solved the problem."

My point is that the Church didn't adopt a Jesus-like approach and institutionally never has taken his path. Paul Hellenised teachings, Nicaea pick and chose from various threads and borrowed from the Roman Mystery Cults and used the theocrasia [god] model known to many religions, the Serapis godhead being very like that contrived at Nicaea. The Preisthood/Church model usurped the teachings of Jesus and created creed/doctrine. As Wells, puts it Jesus was not a Christian. If so, being a Christian is incompatible with in Jesusism.

2. The History of the OT was one of the exclusiveness of the Hebrews [tribalism], The Law and deliveration. It addressed the God of Abraham and the God of Moses. Moreover, the OT and NT godheads are incompatible.

The historical Jesus seems to have piggy-backed on Jewish Messiahism. These Messiahs were meant to deliver the Jews from being and under the thumbs of occupiers and dominant societies. Sort of the day will come when God will make us the Masters sort of thing. Jesus was a different kind [temper aside] taught about love and the Kingdom of Heaven. He wanted to break the links between the individual and the family, and, individual and the formal church.

His ransom was to make all people are equal [rich and poor] and to replace the family with a greater personhood. The Church was unnecessary: Maybe, if he did a have a following, the higher-ups to notice. If have probably heard teh saying, "suppose they called a war and no body came?". Jesus seems to have been saying, "Suppose they called a Sevice [The Jew Religious Law] and nobody came/observed?" ... I have forgiven everything, everybody and for all time. Why have a sabbath [Saturday of Jews and most Seventh Day Adventists] and Sun-Day [Christianity under the influence of Mithras].

BOAZ,

Both, you see, if he were not god, as genuine teacher or pretender, Jesus did not take a half-way stance, requiring Churches, intercessions, confessions and the like.

3. It would be nice to have you answer my questions, please. Your deferrals to dotted-line links are vague to me.

4. Was Jesus a Christian

Robert,

Thanks. Interesting comment.

Confucius maintained that, "the nail that that stands out is hammered down". Wondering messiahs were apart of the first century countryside. A teacher, say, Jesus with his Merry Band, would not have not have stood out. Except,unless, they were teaching against the Law and saying the powerful institution of the traditionalised religion might have been a threat cultural antecedents maintaining Jewish society. At a deep level, the Jews [especially the zealots] were against Rome. Having someone threatening the status rich and powerful and disunifying the Jews, that is, creating a schism, would have been problematic.

From my point of perspective, Jesus was working from the inside out. Or maybe he intended his message only for the Jews? To the best of my knowledge, he did not make direct attacks on Roman authority. As noted above, he taught, we "all", would become him were one with him and his father, wherein, the conventions of family and church were unnecessary. He was really quite radical, if he existed, and the OT and accretions and theocrasia are ignored. Problem is he seems to have "used" the OT with which his audience would have been familiar as a means to his ends.

Crucified? Maybe. But the circumstances seem embellished.

The trinity: God, the father
God, the Son Jesus Christ
God , the Holy Spirit
Are they three Gods or One God in three Forms.
If they are three different Gods then who is more worthy to worship first.

And if they are one in three forms then Jesus(pbuh) is God.
And according to many Christians he was died on the cross. Can God also die.
Life and death is in the hand of God. And if God was died on the cross who make him alive.
Can Any One REPLY

Firstly OLIVER...

"My point is that the Church didn't adopt a Jesus-like approach and institutionally never has taken his path."

and.. believe it or not, that is close to my own point also :)
At least you see the uniqueness of Jesus. The early Church (as in Acts) did adopt a "Jesus like" approach. Only after Constantine did it become the huge institution you (and I) dislike.
Unquestionably, there were various local assemblies prior to Constantine, and there was the usual to and fro of high profile personalities in regards to doctrine, sound teaching etc..

Honestly, I cannot answer all your questions with sufficient detail within 350 words, or even a few posts. Perhaps thats why I faded in the past ? :) Links are better if they handle the subject better than I can.

SMARTBOY.. (who appears to be a Muslim)

"Can God die" ?

Let Jesus answer:

John 10:
17 ...I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
18....No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.
I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Here we see clearly the 'separateness' of Jesus from the Father.
"My Father loves me"

A little further we see the 'one'-ness of Christ Jesus with the Father.

30 "I and the Father are one."

You might be tempted to suggest (as Zakir Naik does) that this 'mean's "Oh... Jesus was of one heart with the will of the father"

But the reaction of the Jews shows this to be untrue. Jesus is claiming 'divinity'

"The Jews took up stones to stone him"

"because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Now..as far as I'm concerned, Mr Naik (and others such as Ahmad deedat) can argue with the Jews..not me. They knew what Jesus was saying in the CULTURAL SETTING of the day. No confusion in their minds.

Add to this "Your sins are forgiven" in Mark 2 for the paralyzed man.
How did the Jews react ? by thinking "Only GOD can forgive sin... this man is uttering blasphemy"

So, while I understand your confusion, and I freely admit that the 'doctrine' of the Trinity is difficult to comprehend for a rational mind, I cannot deny the clear Word of God as you can read above.

Let me just say, that Prayer to God, is like this:

We pray 'to' the Father, 'through' the Son, 'by' the Spirit.

-"Our Father who art in heaven" (Lords prayer)
-"Whatever you ask in my name" (Jesus words to his disciples)
-But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. (Notice the word "he" referring to the Spirit)

I suggest you read Johns gospel chapter 14 to 16 in full. Along with Chapter 8 and chapter 10 separately. It will help
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&version=31

BOAZ,

Thanks.

The further point is what is true of the Churches is largely true of the Scriptures too. These were derived from various house assemblies and written years later than Jesus. There were many Jesus assembly threads [versions of account]. Later still, Nicaea, for example, the creeds and doctrines, with much help from established theocrasaic practice, selected between the the Jesus movement threads [Mack], not going back to the Jesus generation. With the NT, we have third hand people drawing on many second hand accounts.

Do you agree with Wells that Jesus was not a Christian?

Hi Oliver
Jesus was/is "Messiah, Saviour, LORD of Lords, KING of Kings, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the soon coming One"...but He was not a 'Christian' :)

This is simply because the word 'Christian' arose at Antioch during the life of the early Church and mean't 'Christs ones' It was a descriptor of the Messiah's followers, not of the Messiah Himself.

While we are on this important subject of background, I highly recommend to you the following area to peruse.
My claims come from the Gospel of John, and thus the issue of its reliability and history are very important.

Here is an outline of the tradition.

1/ John himself.... wrote the Gospel some time in the first century.33-99ad
2/ Papias, a disciple of John himself, write 5 books (lost) but some of them are quoted in other Church fathers. The importance of Papias is his testimony about the Gospel.
http://hajimac.qee.jp/papiase.htm
3/ Then, we have Ignatius and Eusebius and Ireneaus etc. With Eusebius contending that Papias was a disciple of a later John (The presbyter)

You can evaluate this material as you see fit. Personally, I think the weight of evidence is toward "John the Apostle".

When examining the various early Church fathers and their documents, including works they reference and issues they canvassed, it is possible to build up a reasonably clear picture of Biblical reliability even if one does not share the convictions of knowing Christ.

I find it quite strange that such strong evidence can be simply swept aside and discounted.
blessings.

BOAZ,

I was not referring to the word “Christian”, but the essence of actions of the Christians. The Christians to me were/are very different people to the Jesus assemblies of the 40-80+ CE period. The former appear to have practised a belief in the Kingdom of Heaven/God, a very different system to Christianity [or Islam].

- I re-put the question, “Would Jesus approve of Christianity”?

Historically, the Gospel of John is believed to have been written in 90s CEs in Northern Syria. It seems in part to have been derived from Mark, which was written in Southern Syria c. 80. The historical account would have that Gospel written by a member of the Johnnine Jesus assembly: One of several Jesus assemblies, as I posted before.

The Gospel of John is not synoptic and does not mesh well with the other gospels. There is more praise for the word [logos] of god and an emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God [the Father]. Here, the Writer [90s CE] is trying to deify Jesus. Moreover, John predicts the fall of the Jewish Temple [c.70]. That is like me, today, predicting the D-Day Invasion. The text was written twenty years after the fall! :). John's author was a spinmaster for his assembly.

What the Christian Church does not do is show the interim steps between the historical Jesus and the assemblies and those assemblies and itself. Of course, it cannot. You wont answer the question, "Did Jesus commit suicide?". But the Christian Church would know what "suicide" is, were it to open the doors on these assemblies.

BOAZ,

While you are contemplating my above post, I have fond the following on the suicide issue:

"No man taketh it [life, added] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." - John 10:18

Of course, the above is removed in time and space and religious entity from Jesus. There are decades and dozens of Jesus assemles between Jesus [if he existed] and the gospels. [I suspect, he did exist in a very different way that the spin.]

Hello BOAZ,

- I re-put the question, “Would Jesus approve of Christianity”?

Still plenty of loose ends above.

O

Dear Oliver... now I know why I give the impression of 'ignoring' your questions. They are so many :)

Try to limit it to one major question per post, and only one post per day please.. I do have a life :)

Q:Would Jesus approve of Christianity?
A: Yes, to the extent that it faithfully represented his Word. "He who hears my words and does them, is like a man who built his house on the rock"

Q: "Did Jesus committ Suicide" ?
A: No, he knew what was to befall him, and freely gave his life to that fate. He did not end his life himself.

Your Points about the embryonic Church are valid, and their role in the preservation of the teachings and signs of Jesus. You must remember though, that the Eye witnesses were present as 'consultants' so to speak for many years after our Lord ascended. There was false teaching from the word go, as Galatians especially shows. Paul wrote to correc this, and others I'm sure were active in the same role, though records have not been kept apart from the NT itself.

Ultimately, I don't believe that only a study of the history of the NT will bring a man or woman to faith. The best it can do is raise the individuals level of confidence on the foundation. It is the Gospel which saves, 'Repent..and Believe'.... enter the kingdom of God, in Christ, and share with the Body of believers that glorious peace which passes understanding.
amen.

Boaz, you started this thread, so you ought at least do others the courtesy of a straight answer.

>>Q:Would Jesus approve of Christianity?
A: Yes, to the extent that it faithfully represented his Word<<

As someone who frequently castigates the various established churches for their inability to follow this "Word", you owe it to Oliver to be a little more honest with your answer.

To what extent do those people who call themselves christian - and you claim that they are something in the order of seventy percent of the Australian population - represent Christianity?

The reason that this question is important is as folows.

You have often portrayed yourself as a "real" christian, as opposed to a member of the church. This actually puts you, I suspect, in a substantial minority - certainly outside the definition of a Roman Catholic, for example.

You also, in your over-frequent "whack-a-mozzie" diatribes, attribute the vile motives of a small number of fanatical Islamists to the Muslim community as a whole.

Given your own position, as a tiny minority who believes himself to be a "true follower of the Word" castigating a small minority who believe themselves to be "true followers of a different Word", isn't your position just a tiny bit hypocritical?

So, how about a proper answer to Oliver's question: would Jesus approve of Christianity?

Pericles,

Thanks... that is an apt answer for a Christian church position, as if you were a typical Christian.

I feel it possible to draw many threads relating my question and your answer, where two posits are:

- Politically and militarily the Christians and the Muslims have similar undesirable histories.

- Jesus was not a Christian ideologically. He taught about the Kingdom of Heaven/God and against the [Jewish] Law. His goal was to make the Law obsolete. Any capital sacrifice, if made, was endured in that context: More a contra-Pharisee than a global redeemer, a humanist with an agenda to make perhaps by sacrifice Jewish rites obsolete and a wish to create a Kingdom of God outside/challenging the family unit. Beyond, that we have borrowings, accretions, and politics.

I do not see the Christian church any closer to Jesus than Zues.

BOAZ,

My vision of Jesus requires ditching Church creed and doctrine, accepting a mere fraction of the Gospels as Gospel and demoting the OT against Jesus’ mission. Suggest Jesus was spun to become significant in history, yet, I would see Abraham as more significant, as he is the source of the three major monotheist religions.

Not fluent in Galatians, I' afraid. Will need to look.

Is suicide by Cop, suicide?

"Eye witnesses were present as 'consultants' so to speak for many years after our Lord ascended. Eye witnesses were present as 'consultants' so to speak for many years after our Lord ascended." - BOAZ

One should also appreciate Jesus traditions were regionalised, separated by distance, as well as time, from Jesus. There were localised versions accounts. Kerygma [&#954;&#951;&#961;&#973;&#947;&#956;&#945;], as the notion of preaching the reason, rather than the posited/claimed reason itself, would have taken shape around 50 CE to influence the writers of Paul[Asia Minor] and Mark [Southern Syria]. There is plenty of latitude of Chinese whispers and distortions between the Cross and different times and places. Else put, stamps of various interpretations were placed oral tradition. Suspect that any eye witness account would have muddied.

Note, my earlier account of the Kingdom of God/Heaven

BOAZ,

Is suicide by Cop, suicide? The point is the suicidal person, on a mission, here, is bating the situation with fore knowledge of the result, even though the task is assigned to a third party.

All,

On balance, for me, the evidence would suggest Jesus is not God. A well educated ascetic [maybe an Essene]countermanding the Pharisees and substituting the Kingdom of God/Heaven for the strict practice of the Jewish Law/Rites. Messianic? Yes: But not on the mission attributed by the Christians. The message seems different.

Philo,

In the Hebrew language is there a distinction between "religious sin" and sin generically. Does OT make any distinction? Thanks.

BOAZ,

Is suicide by Cop, suicide? Regards

HELLO BOAZ,

I am feeling a bit like that legendary spider who tries and tries and tries again:

When I person aware of the likely fatal result bates/progresses a situation which would surely lead to a third is that not suicide?

- Is death by Cop suicide?

BOAZ,

Can't say didn't try :).

Regards.

Boaz, you started this thread, so you ought at least do others the courtesy of an answer.

It is an interesting philosophical question that Oliver has raised, one that deserves some kind of response.

Given your considerable zeal in pursuing issues with religions other than your own, it's not a good look when you baulk at a simple examination of an intriguing - and hardly life-threatening - element of the Christianity story.

So, how about it?

Sorry about that team.. not meaning to be rude, just trying to keep up with a number of threads.

SUICIDE BY COP... err.. why are u asking me this ?

Of course it is... but is this somehow leading to 'If Jesus knew of what was going to happen, why did He go ahead anyway' ?

We cannot speak of 'suicide by cop' and make comparisons the sacrificial death of Jesus, which was clearly Gods will from eternity.

Isaiah 53 please read.

Oliver, Pericles don't you guys get it yet! When it's BD's god involved then the things that leave other faiths condemmed are OK because it's BD's god doing them. Slaughtering kids, infants etc was OK because god decreed it. Suicide by cop was OK because Jesus was doing gods will. Whereas that other bloke in the turban could not possibly have been doing gods will (despite what about 1 billion people believe) therefore his actions were the result of barbaric godless make it up as you go morals.

Surely we've been over this often enough for you to understand that stuff. And by the way don't you dare try to place yourself above BD's god a decide that maybe his reported actions don't seem all that loving or just (OK to do it to other peoples gods though).

R0bert