If Jesus is God's Son...

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Malocchio
And if God has a Son well he must have a wife, right? In order to make a son you first need to have sex , does God have sex?

A similar argument is made in the Quran:

Information regarding the rest of the OP:

Son(s) of God: Insight, Volume 2:

The expression “Son of God” primarily identifies Christ Jesus. Others referred to as “son(s) of God” include intelligent spirit creatures produced by God, the man Adam before he sinned, and humans with whom God has dealt on the basis of covenant relationship.

I obviously kept it short but every usage of that terminology is discussed in more detail with biblical examples on that page. I chose to start with addressing the argument from the Quran that you used a similar version of. But the page above addresses many other things you brought up.

The Qur'an is a wise book.


I don't so much as need to have the things I brought up "addressed" as I was, myself, addressing something and not out of need for answers but desire to shine light on absurdity.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Malocchio
God said Let there be "Light". The Logo/Word of God, The Son, The Holy Spirit, The Creation itself.

Because I said something about this game of conflation (previous comment) regarding the Greek word "Logos" used at John 1:1 being played, here's some more information about that subject:

Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin.
...
Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy.
...
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.*

* = The Paradox of Tertullian

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

“LOOK out,” wrote the apostle Paul to Christians living in the latter half of the first century C.E. What was he warning against? “Perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.”—Colossians 2:8.

Despite Paul’s warning, from the middle of the second century C.E., some Christians began using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs. Why? They wanted to be accepted by the educated people of the Roman Empire and thus make more converts.

Justin Martyr, one of the most famous of these Christians, believed that God’s Spokesman had manifested himself to Greek philosophers long before the arrival of Jesus. According to Justin and like-minded teachers, the contribution of philosophy and mythology to Christianity made this form of religion truly universal.

Justin Martyr’s form of Christianity became very successful in gaining converts. However, the adoption of one myth led to the creation of others and produced what is now commonly believed to be Christian doctrine. To expose these myths, compare what the following reference works say with what the Bible actually teaches.
Next page

Source: One Myth Leads to Another

Word, The: Insight, Volume 2:

The term “word” in the Scriptures most frequently translates the Hebrew and Greek words da·varʹ and loʹgos. These words in the majority of cases refer to an entire thought, saying, or statement rather than simply to an individual term or unit of speech. (In Greek a ‘single word’ is expressed by rheʹma [Mt 27:14], though it, too, can mean a saying or spoken matter.) Any message from the Creator, such as one uttered through a prophet, is “the word of God.” In a few places Loʹgos (meaning “Word”) is a title given to Jesus Christ.

The Word of God. “The word of Jehovah” is an expression that, with slight variations, occurs hundreds of times in the Scriptures. By “the word of Jehovah” the heavens were created. God said the word and it was accomplished. “God proceeded to say: ‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light.” (Ps 33:6; Ge 1:3) It should not be understood from this that Jehovah himself does no work. (Joh 5:17) But he does have myriads of angels that respond to his word and carry out his will.—Ps 103:20.
...
“The Word” as a Title. In the Christian Greek Scriptures “the Word” (Gr., ho Loʹgos) also appears as a title. (Joh 1:1, 14; Re 19:13) The apostle John identified the one to whom this title belongs, namely, Jesus, he being so designated not only during his ministry on earth as a perfect man but also during his prehuman spirit existence as well as after his exaltation to heaven.
...
This Word, or Loʹgos, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) Hence John continued, saying: “This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”—Joh 1:2, 3.

Other scriptures plainly show that the Word was God’s agent through whom all other things came into existence. There is “one God the Father, out of whom all things are, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are.” (1Co 8:6) The Word, God’s Son, was “the beginning of the creation by God,” otherwise described as “the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.”—Re 3:14; Col 1:15, 16.
...
Why God’s Son is called “the Word.” A title often describes the function served or the duty performed by the bearer. So it was with the title Kal-Hatzé, meaning “the voice or word of the king,” that was given an Abyssinian officer. Based on his travels from 1768 to 1773, James Bruce describes the duties of the Kal-Hatzé as follows. He stood by a window covered with a curtain through which, unseen inside, the king spoke to this officer. He then conveyed the message to the persons or party concerned. Thus the Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.—Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, London, 1790, Vol. III, p. 265; Vol. IV, p. 76.

Recall, too, that God made Aaron the word or “mouth” of Moses, saying: “He must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.”—Ex 4:16.

In a similar way God’s firstborn Son doubtless served as the Mouth, or Spokesman, for his Father, the great King of Eternity. ...

Showing that Jesus continued to serve as his Father’s Spokesman, or Word, during his earthly ministry, he told his listeners: “I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. . . Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me them, so I speak them.”—Joh 12:49, 50; 14:10; 7:16, 17.

a reply to: Malocchio

Exactly: jesus = god - 1 -4 = Holy Ghost

if Mary/Magdalene/Elizabeth
if the demiurge Jehovah
John the Baptist

I am trying to unlock the numerical perfection of creation of the Trinity, a da Vinci code quest one might say, as the "written account" only barely infers such a Trinity. I have failed miserably


I give up - great logic BTW

a reply to: Trueman

I just can't wait to read the answers to your question. Lotta mod editing ahead LOL.

If we wear Mormon undergarments would that make this thread holy?

www.google.com.au...=mormon+underwear+garment

a reply to: Woodcarver

Does god have a navel or breasts?

a reply to: neo96

other than to make it look 'aesthetically pleasing'.

But that is in the eye of the beholder - there are whole races and cultures out there that haven't fallen for that Judaizing practise

a reply to: visitedbythem

Commanding the sea with results also shows authority

getting bears to eat children who laughed at Elishas baldness shows what a cruel fake it/he/trinity/jesus/god is

a reply to: JimNasium

So if thats the case why throw this in

"No Body, No Headache"

Sounds like someone has been missing out

a reply to: Pinocchio

Circumcision was only a matter of hygiene

In an arid "biblical" environment yes - in today's freshwater "at the tap" not so much - in fact circumcision reduces sensation and is rather cruel to new born's

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Trueman

I just can't wait to read the answers to your question. Lotta mod editing ahead LOL.

If we wear Mormon undergarments would that make this holy???

No!

But you can always bring in a priest to sanctify the shower head and bless the tap water... and go in on your own with consecrated dove soap. Therein is holiness and purity of the baptism.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


Any desires, especially secks, NEEDS the body to experience the pleasure. I know when I AM through w/this body I'll no longer experience the chronic pain in My back/neck. Imagine if it was My Port Side? There is a group of folks that believe "demons" attach to the left side of the torso and this is the entity that directs the carrier to commit dastardly deeds.
Luckily it is My right side that is wrecked.

Maybe The One Infinite Creator is "Creation" itSelf? Again, no body needed.

"Ours not to reason why..."

a reply to: whereislogic

The text litterally says they were created man and women before it says Eve was taken out of Adam.

Then the angles don't get married because they are both male and femal.

I'm not sure why you insist on creating confusion when I am sticking to what is clearly written.

Jesus is the Word of God. The father said Let there be light, then he directed the creation through the creation of man through the Light.

Jesus is the Creation. He is the Holy Spirit.
The Spirt of Creation is the Love of Christ, Love to the point of dying on a cross and forgiving those who placed him there.

We were made by the creation, for the creation and through the creation we were made. Jesus Christ is the only son, unless someone else wants to claim to be the Spirt of Creation, The Light, the Holy Spirit.

I am not mistaken, I am listening to what the books actually say, and eliminating all the unnecessary church dogma.

He is Eywa for those who need a more visual reference. - Avatar But the creation was created by his father. Christ is the Firstborn and only Son, meaning only One Creation which we are all a part of.

Both physically and spiritually.

a reply to: Isurrender73
If you want to stick to what the bible is saying a good start would be to quote what it says, so we can see whether the bible says: "they were created man and women before it says Eve was taken out of Adam". Or any of those details that I used italics for.

The bible shows in chapter 1 that man (as in earthling man, mankind, the human race; see end of comment for definitions) was created with the "male and female" subtypes. To sum up the creation.

Then in chapter 2 of Genesis more details are given. Genesis chapter 2 does not occur necessarily chronologically after Genesis 1. Genesis chapter 2 discusses details of the things that were summed up in chapter 1 and the focus is no longer on summing up the subject of creation as it is in chapter 1. Here are the quotations that I'm referring to from an accurate honest translation.

Genesis 1:27 (NWT)

And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

In creating "him" (referring to the person whose name is "Adam", which comes from the Hebrew word for "man") God also created man(kind) or (earthling) man. By specifying that "male and female he created them" additional information is added to let the reader know that mankind was created male and female, 2 subtypes, once the whole creation of mankind was completed (which was done in 2 stages, first Adam, then Eve, but summed up in chapter 1 cause both creations were part of the subject of the creation of "earthling man").

The reference bible makes it clearer in the footnote for "man" in verse 26:

Or, “earthling man.” Heb., ʼa·dhamʹ, without the definite article.

Genesis 2:21,22 (Reference Bible):

Hence Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man.

Jehovah did not as you put it: take Eve out of Adam. He took one of Adam's ribs out of Adam.

So this statement is wrong (especially the italics):

The text litterally says they were created man and women before it says Eve was taken out of Adam.

And it certainly doesn't suggest that the person whose name is Adam was both male and female (otherwise Genesis 1:27 also wouldn't have said "him", clearly identifying the subtype for the person whose name is Adam).

The angels don't get married because they have no gender. No gender is the opposite of a hermaphrodite (having both genders). They were not made with the ability to reproduce their own kind but were created individually.
You continued:

Jesus is the Word of God. The father said Let there be light, then he directed the creation through the creation of man through the Light.

This is why you should be quoting the bible when saying things like "I am sticking to what is clearly written". You will find no such thing regarding the part that I put in italics in the bible. You are also conflating different usages of the word "light" with "the Light" and "the Word of God". That's the conflation game I talked about earlier. The light mentioned in Genesis 1:3 has nothing to do with Jesus or the creation of man (other than man needing light for various survival reasons, but that's another topic). I hope you're noticing now that I'm using the word "man" to refer to mankind, both the male and female kind.

man

1.
an adult human male.
synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman;
2.
a human being of either sex; a person.
"God cares for all races and all men"
synonyms: human being, human, person

Source: google dictionary

I'm using the 2nd definition or usage in my phrase "creation of man" before. But the Merriam-Webster dictionary makes it even more clear in the full definition under "b : the human race : humankind". Genesis 1:27 does so as well and for that reason both the creation of the man whose name is "Man"(Adam) as well as (hu)mankind being created male and female is relevant to the subject of the creation of (hu)mankind. That's why both things are mentioned seperately beginning with mentioning the creation of "him" (obviously referring to Adam), that's the most important part of the creation of mankind. The rest is additional information about subtypes which were also created as part of the larger project of the creation of mankind. Which you can also phrase as "the creation of man" when using definition b from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yes I understand the misogynistic viewpoint of a Masculine God and Masculine superiority.

I reject that misogynistic interpretation and instead take it that God is both Male and Female, and that masculine and feminine are equal parts of creation.

You can continue to accept a misogynistic account of creation that the church has handed down and justified for the last 1700 years or you could change your mind.

It doesn't effect me much what you believe. I prefer to judge a man by how he lives his life. Because no matter your faith, faith without (good) works is dead.

Jesus is most definitely the Firstborn word of God, The Light. It is quite simple actually.

The old Testament makes it clear that the Light is one of the distinctions of Christ. The Jews understood this, but we're expecting the Light to bring peace when he came as a man.

What they disputed was a singular Messiah or two. It appears the majority viewpoint has always been Christ fulfilling all the prophecies during his life as a man, but the dual Messiah viewpoint has existed since before Christ.

They anticipated a sacrificed Messiah followed later by the one who leads the world to the age of Light/Peace.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: whereislogic
Jesus is the Creation. He is the Holy Spirit.

Bible quotation to support these 2 theological doctrines? I agree with neither, that's not how I see these subjects being described in the bible.

The Spirt of Creation is the Love of Christ, Love to the point of dying on a cross and forgiving those who placed him there.

Bible quotation to support this? I'm not familiar with the phrase "the Spirit of Creation". I am familiar with the love of the Christ though, which is referring to the things discussed on this page:
“To Know the Love of the Christ”: Close to Jehovah

HAVE you ever seen a little boy trying to be like his father? The son may imitate the way his father walks, talks, or acts. In time, the boy may even absorb his father’s moral and spiritual values. Yes, the love and admiration that a son feels for a loving father moves the boy to want to be like his dad.

2 What about the relationship between Jesus and his heavenly Father? “I love the Father,” Jesus said on one occasion. (John 14:31) No one can possibly love Jehovah more than this Son, who was with the Father long before any other creatures came into existence. That love moved this devoted Son to want to be like his Father.—John 14:9.

3 In earlier chapters of this book, we discussed how Jesus perfectly imitated Jehovah’s power, justice, and wisdom. How, though, did Jesus reflect his Father’s love? Let us examine three facets of Jesus’ love—his self-sacrificing spirit, his tender compassion, and his willingness to forgive.
...
16 Jesus perfectly reflected his Father’s love in another important way—he was “ready to forgive.” (Psalm 86:5) This willingness was evident even when he was on the torture stake. Subjected to a shameful death, with nails piercing his hands and feet, what did Jesus speak about? Did he call out to Jehovah to punish his executioners? On the contrary, among Jesus’ last words were: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”—Luke 23:34.*
...

Do You “Know the Love of the Christ”?

20, 21. How can we fully come “to know the love of the Christ”?

20 Truly, Jehovah’s Word beautifully describes the love of the Christ. How, though, should we respond to Jesus’ love? The Bible urges us “to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge.” (Ephesians 3:19) As we have seen, the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry teach us much about Christ’s love. However, fully coming “to know the love of the Christ” involves more than learning what the Bible says about him.

21 The Greek term rendered “to know” means to know “practically, through experience.” When we show love the way Jesus did—unselfishly giving of ourselves in behalf of others, compassionately responding to their needs, forgiving them from our hearts—then we can genuinely appreciate his feelings. In this way, by experience we come “to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge.” And let us never forget that the more we become like Christ, the closer we will draw to the one whom Jesus perfectly imitated, our loving God, Jehovah.

Back to you:

We were made by the creation, for the creation and through the creation we were made.

Come on, logic please, pretty please? You're beginning to sound like Stephen Hawking with his universe that is creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything, let alone create itself. You are not sticking with what was written as you put it earlier. You're making stuff up as you go and it doesn't make any logical sense. Of course you are under heavy influence of the system of things and the spirit of the world. So it is to be expected, see my sig. for details.

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't think I can prove that Jesus Christ is the creation itself from scriptures. It just makes since, it is both spiritual and logical and does not cause any contradiction.

The link between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is the reason for the Trinity. If you have truly studied you shouldn't need me to point out the references where Jesus says I will come to you and the references where he says the Holy Spirit will come to you and see that they both accomplish the exact same things when they come to you. The messenger will come in my name. It's a puzzle written in tounges. I believe I have interpreted correctly.

I believe
Jesus - Physical
Christ - Holy Spirt.

And the Quran agrees that Jesus is both the Spirt and word from God. The Quran agrees that they are 2, not 1 and not 3, and God created Jesus.

Jesus is the Holy Spirit but he is not God the Father. The Hindu, Christian, and Muslim scriptures all agree. The Christ/The Light/The Lord of Love was sent by Allah/God/Brahma.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Trueman

I just can't wait to read the answers to your question. Lotta mod editing ahead LOL.

If we wear Mormon undergarments would that make this thread holy?

www.google.com.au...=mormon+underwear+garment

Mormom underwear...holy? LOL!

It depends on how long you've owned them and if you can sew or not, or have the funds to replace them.

Mormons tend to be well off financially so I don't imagine too many have holy undies.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: neo96

other than to make it look 'aesthetically pleasing'.

But that is in the eye of the beholder - there are whole races and cultures out there that haven't fallen for that Judaizing practise

Judaizing, really?

I think that term is about 2000 years out of date. Jews don't Judaize, it's not a problem the world has to deal with on the level of say... Evangelizing Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.

Why are they not Christaizers?

I think Judaism is a fascinating religion. Jews don't read the Torah nearly as literally as Christians and accept the unhistorical contents as unhistorical.

Whenever this is the case the Jew seeks a deeper metaphorical interpretation that is hidden from the uninitiated mind of those who value blind faith and acceptance of the preposterous as somehow virtuous.

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Malocchio

god in the flesh basically the interpretation varies but the message remains the same

at least we have tons of atheists here to clear that up for everyone

"Tons of atheists" is a stretch, you left the fourth or fifth message and any one of those comments before your's could have been a Christian. Christians aren't always gullible to the extreme and can comfortably doubt without panicking about hellfire.

And just because a person isn't Christian doesn't make them atheist in any way whatsoever. Atheist is total disbelief in God or gods of any kind and there are plenty of non Christian religions with Gods or that worship God.

Some Christians would be smart to listen and learn the atheist perspective.


I have no idea what ''God" is or isn't but I like mythology, and that is what religion is, corporate mythology.


But if you want to say Jesus is truly God's Son and God and like some Christians says the Creator, and was a human and all that you should not be shocked when atheists mock those beliefs.

so you want respect by disrespecting others.... common among groups.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Malocchio

god in the flesh basically the interpretation varies but the message remains the same

at least we have tons of atheists here to clear that up for everyone

"Tons of atheists" is a stretch, you left the fourth or fifth message and any one of those comments before your's could have been a Christian. Christians aren't always gullible to the extreme and can comfortably doubt without panicking about hellfire.

And just because a person isn't Christian doesn't make them atheist in any way whatsoever. Atheist is total disbelief in God or gods of any kind and there are plenty of non Christian religions with Gods or that worship God.

Some Christians would be smart to listen and learn the atheist perspective.


I have no idea what ''God" is or isn't but I like mythology, and that is what religion is, corporate mythology.


But if you want to say Jesus is truly God's Son and God and like some Christians says the Creator, and was a human and all that you should not be shocked when atheists mock those beliefs.

so you want respect by disrespecting others.... common among groups.

I actually didn't disrespect anybody.

But it's fascinating that you equate scrutiny with disrespect being that the beliefs of Christianity are relatively absurd and don't hold up to scrutiny needing ''justification" from ''faith."