Who Was Jesus? He Definitely Is Not God

Actually Sartre comes through with synchronicity as a fellowman (and the fellowmen) in his bodily presence of following in the darkness of the occidental world on it's decline. But to consider it God he stops short of that time-passing being defined in the static ontological form. At the moment it-is-not what it-is and it-is what it-is-not; the self-disposition of being is thrown through existence into the extension of the World. He really does consider the possibility of It Being God for all the Possibles of mankind for the Present (the bustling community and world). All the possibles would be in oneself, literally the for itself in itself body.

But really God is only thus the Desire to be God. Is such a desire invoked or evoked? It succeeds to be a reminder that He does nothing for thou, and might as well not Exist.

 

The point being in my last post here that the word "god" takes on many meanings, depending on who you are talking to and the source they prefer over others, so the supposed Jesus of the NT could have been considered one depending on who you talked about it with.

 

Jesus wanted to die, cause death is everything good. If he was God he would of had a duty to do more fun for the retarded ape called man. He should of killed, but that is very kind to whom die. Living is what's hard, dying is a blessing if you allow yourself to receive. But karma of how you die extends to next live's.

 

As one of Pagan faith, I can dig Jesus - he was a cool dude who preached a lot of good things like, sharing caring, of the corruption of bankers, for to forgiven and environmental awareness

 

More than just a "cool dude" he fulfilled his assignment perfectly given to him by God. Setting a model for humans, teaching the good news about the incoming kingdom, healing the sick and raising the dead. A showing of what will happen in the future.

 

Theological scholars cannot even agree on his existence, though chances are he never existed as anything except a fictional character.

 

What chance?

 

Who told you that?

 

Jesus was a selfless martyr, according to the limited historical records that are accessible to the public. I believe if one wanted to know more truth about him, you would have to read his unadulterated Aramaic words that were recorded. Good luck finding that though.

 

Jesus was both God and man. It takes a non-dualistic mind to understand.

 

Can you supply credible sources?

 

Was he unique in this respect, or are we all god and man?

 

I thought Jesus was the son of God.

The SON

of

GOD.

 

I'm not a Christian, and I think the bible and especially the new testament are very deceptively mistransliterated, but Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34 make sense to me from a metaphysical view. I am more inclined to believe that it was not unique to Jesus, but I am inclined to believe that he was only trying to enlighten us towards our individual divine nature (Leading by example).

 

Good question. I think neither. But we have the potential. But becoming god may sound misleading

 

So let me get this straight . . . jesus was not unique in being a human god, meaning we are all human gods, but also none of us are human gods, however we can become human gods, but don't be confused and think that we could ever be human gods. That about sums up your careful position?

 

No. I would not call people gods anyway. Doesn't seem fitting to me. But we can become like Jesus is what I ment. Close to God. Divine perhaps. Although I would not describe it like being divine or being both man and god myself, I can see what Monkeyboy means.

 

Not quite. As St. Irenaeus put it: "if the word has been made man, it is so that men can be made gods". (Adv. Haer v, pref), see also St. Athanasius. This doesn't mean that we are all human gods, only that we have the potential to become such--and there is difference of opinion as to whether this is by direct transformation or by adoption, and whether it can occur while we're alive or is something that awaits us in the afterlife. The doctrine is known as "theosis", or divinization, and is prominent in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, some charismatic Christian Universalists, New Thought, and New Age denominations, where it is associated with the concept of "Christ consciousness". The Mormons famously offer this in the afterlife, where we can become gods and have our own planets. Traditional western Christians tend to have a dim view of all of this. I believe that Jesus was divine in the sense of being the most highly enlightened human to walk the earth and therefore to have attained "Christ consciousness".

 

I'm not much interested in the concoctions of men long dead, the fevered constructions of too much credulity and too much time, without a check or balance in sight to meter their baseless musings.

So you believe Jesus Christ was divine, without being in any way shape or form associated with divinity? That he merely accidentally happened to rank #1 in a ranking of "enlightenment"?

Can you provide me with some information about how he has attained that ranking in your mind? The crux of his best message is the golden rule; an ethical maxim which predates the life of jesus by immeasurable spans of time. The rest of it is kind of shady, with some really strange things to have been uttered by the supposed maximal human achievement of moral brilliance.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

I shan't even thicken the plot by pointing out that we aren't quite sure if the fellow even ever existed.

 

I didn't quite get the part about "without being in any way shape or form associated with divinity". I think that Jesus was divinely inspired to the point of attaining "Christ consciousness" . I should qualify my statement by saying that I think Jesus was the most enlightened man I've heard of, although the Buddha would be a close second. What gives Jesus the edge to me is his emphasis on active concern for society's rejects, outcasts and least advantaged. Not being sure of things doesn't slow me down, as long as they're supported by substantial evidence, not contrary to reason, and sufficiently plausible to bet on. I've explained at some length why I think Jesus actually existed. (See my thread Jesus Myth Theories). I think it's unlikely that first century Jews would make up an imaginary Messiah who was crucified like a common criminal, cursed according to Deuteronomy, baptized by a man who was supposedly his inferior, etc., or that Paul would make up imaginary rivals like James and Peter, who claimed to know the historical Jesus. I must admit, however, that the Jesus whom I characterized as being divinely enlightened is, like the Buddha, probably an idealized hero, based on portrayals in sacred writings. The highly skeptical Jesus Seminar concludes that Jesus actually said and did less than 20% of the things attributed to Him, but the consensus picture of that fraction is of a man who eloquently preached and practiced unconditional love, especially for the downtrodden. I don't know of a better example, do you? I'm including the Thomas gospel along with the canonical ones, and ignoring the miracles, for reasons adequately explained by Hume.

You mention Luke 19:27.The passage that you cite is a parable--the parable of the vinyard and the tenants. The parable seems to be an allusion to the Pharisees and Temple priests (the tenants) rejecting and killing the son (Jesus) of the owner (God). Jesus, if He said this at all, is not telling people to kill anybody, but is giving an allegory to show that the keepers of the Temple and the Jewish religious traditions are abusing their position, and would rightly deserve punishment for doing so. The Jesus Seminar thinks the parable is in the "gray" area as far as authenticity, and they rate the part that you quote as black, meaning "Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition." There are other passages that you might have cited, as well, suggesting that the historical Jesus might have had His flaws (or the Gospel writers had theirs). He was, after all, human,as well as divinely inspired. But that doesn't matter to me. The teachings and example attributed to the man from multiple sources are enlightened enough to inspire me.