If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

Quote:

Matthew, as most are aware was one of the 12 disciples as was John and Peter. These account for 8 books of the New Testament.

All four gospel writers are anonymous. We have no idea who any of them were nor is their any evidence Matthew the author is the same as Matthew the apostle. We must understand that the Gospel of Matthew heavily relies on the Gospel of Mark as a source. We get this from the two source hypothesis. Mark was not nearly as close to Jesus as Matthew, the apostle. He was an associate of Peter, not of Jesus, like Matthew. It is extremely unlikely that the apostle Matthew would quote Mark as heavily as the author of this gospel does. He would rely on his own memories or those of others very close to Jesus. This implies that the author of Matthew is not the apostle.

Quote:

Actually your earlier admission that you would not contest the historicity of Jesus if He was claimed to be just a man, but your apparent continuation of denial of the historical Jesus when He is presented as He claimed , God in the flesh, is an interesting admission of bias on your part.

Your tacit admission of the historical existence of Jesus causes your continuing denial to ring rather hollow.)

No admission was made. I said it was entirely feasible that a historical man named Jesus once existed. I question the mythological aspects that are attached to Jesus. I make no claim to convert anyone to my beliefs nor do I believe I am right above everyone else. I simply choose to use my intelligence to question and if you take that as bias then so be it.

Quote:

Where are all the accounts from the earliest Christians, you ask. Interesting question since apparently many of them were hunted down and killed for their faith. But you would fault them for not pausing and writing to satisfy your curiosity. Yes and where are all the first hand accounts of the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Why did they not write for us as well?

A poor comparison. There are hundreds of books written by holocaust survivors. Eli Wiesel immediately came to mind.

Quote:

I invite you to give it your best pitch and show us your top contenders for Bible contradictions. Just know in advance that it is not as easy as it looks.

I've done so numerous times. Even presenting the entire genealogies of Mark and Luke as told in the bible and how they bear no resemblance to each other at all.

Luke offers us what looks like a convincing piece of historical detail when he tells us that Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius. This took place in 6 CE. Yet Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Luke even contradicts himself, stating that John and Jesus were miraculously conceived six months apart in the reign of Herod, but still portrays Mary with child at the time of census of 6 CE, creating in essence a 10-year pregnancy.

According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus was both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin. Luke has it that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, but was not sentenced by them. Yet according to John, Jesus does not appear before the Sanhedrin at all.

John places the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of his narrative, Matthew at the end. Mark has Jesus teaching only in the area of Galilee, and not in Judea, and only traveling the 70 miles to Jerusalem once, at the end of his life. Luke, however, portrays Jesus as teaching equally in Galilee and Judea. John's Jesus, on the other hand, preaches mainly in Jerusalem and makes only occasional visits to Galilee.

In Matthew, Judas "went and hanged himself." But the Acts of the Apostles tells us he died from an accidental fall after betraying Jesus. The gospel writers, who we are supposed to believe were Jesus' close disciples, cannot even remember their master's last words correctly! According to Matthew and Mark Jesus quotes Psalm 22 as his parting words, asking, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" But Luke has Jesus quote Psalm 31: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." For those who don't like either of these, there is always John's account, in which Jesus says simply, "I am thirsty" and then, "It is finished."

Shall I continue?

0 Replies

Duke it out real life and SN95. Your ambidexter applications of truth are totally missing the point. Neither of you are in a first hand positon to assert anything. Heck, we don't even know for sure what's going on in Iraq, do we?

The litmus test for the bible should be in its application to life. If the sandal fits; wear it.

0 Replies

Hi SN,

Ok, first the genealogies. Seems like a case of simple discrepancy and/or contradiction, right? Perhaps all we need is additional information. As an example, the apostle Peter was known in the scripture by at least 3 different names - Peter, Cephas and Simon. Do we have all of the information we would like to have about the people in these lists? Obviously not, but dogmatically calling these lists contradictory without a lot of additional information seems a bit premature.

It is very doubtful that a writer of that era, wishing to prove to Jews the lineage of a supposed descendant of David, would just throw a bunch of bogus names in for fun, don't you think? This is especially relevant when it could have been so easily checked by his contemporary audience, the Jews, who kept extensive records of genealogies. Without clear evidence of a contradiction beyond just your say-so, the lists must stand for now.

-------------------------

Regarding the dates of the census versus the death of Herod, perhaps the problem here lies with the dates you have cited. The writer Luke, a medical doctor, is highly unlikely to have accepted a ten year pregnancy. Since the "accepted" date of both the census and the death of Herod has shifted many times over the years, is it unreasonable to think that one or both dates may or may not be correct?

Again, automatically assuming a contradiction is validated when supporting evidence or information has varied so much over the years seems wishful thinking.

-----------------

Regarding the cleansing of the temple, the narratives are not necessarily chronologically arranged, nor is there need for them to be. If I write an essay regarding the President's policy toward China, I do not need to start the essay with the oldest event and finish it with the most recent. I insert examples as needed to support the points I am trying to make. The dates of the events may or may not be relevant. In this case, they are not.

-------------------

Regarding Jesus words while on the cross , Matthew and Mark actually do indicate that Jesus spoke again after the quotation from Ps 22, but they don't go further to show what was said.

-----------------------

The absence of a Sanhedrin appearance in John's gospel proves nothing.

As far as the rest, each of these other examples has the same problem, namely that an argument from silence is notoriously weak as has been discussed earlier.

Each writer did not include every event or detail. That much is obvious. One writer wanting to emphasize certain aspects included information pertinent to his point. Another writer emphasizing a different perspective includes different and/or additional , but not necessarily conflicting, information.

Matthew whose primary audience seems to be Jews, includes lots of quotations from the Old Testament showing how Christ is the fulfillment of ancient prophecies. Other writers leave these completely out. This is not contradictory.

If all four gospels included all the same information and detail, you would have 4 xerox copies and you would say, well it is obvious that there was collusion here. (And three of them would be unnecessary.)

-----------------------------------------

Really, these are all really old objections and do not show much.

I was really expecting you to come up with something a little more creative, such as when Jesus is shown healing a blind man on His way out of Jericho, while another writer shows Him healing the same blind man on His way into Jericho.

Or how about when Matthew writes that Jesus spoke on a hill or mountaintop (the Sermon on the Mount) but Luke insists He spoke these things while in a field, or a plain?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Duke it out real life and SN95. Your ambidexter applications of truth are totally missing the point. Neither of you are in a first hand positon to assert anything. Heck, we don't even know for sure what's going on in Iraq, do we?

The litmus test for the bible should be in its application to life. If the sandal fits; wear it.

Hi Neologist,

If your point is that the only truth in the Bible that matters is subjective , i.e. "It works for me." or "It speaks to my heart." then I must disagree.

The objective truth presented in the Bible is important and Christ treated it as such. He refuted the Saducees erroneous belief by emphasizing the tense of a Hebrew verb. Mt 22:32

He regarded Adam, Noah, Abel, Lot and Moses as historic persons who lived and did the things ascribed to them in scripture.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:
Duke it out real life and SN95. Your ambidexter applications of truth are totally missing the point. Neither of you are in a first hand positon to assert anything. Heck, we don't even know for sure what's going on in Iraq, do we?

The litmus test for the bible should be in its application to life. If the sandal fits; wear it.
Hi Neologist,

If your point is that the only truth in the Bible that matters is subjective , i.e. "It works for me." or "It speaks to my heart." then I must disagree.

The objective truth presented in the Bible is important and Christ treated it as such. He refuted the Sadducees erroneous belief by emphasizing the tense of a Hebrew verb. Mt 22:32

He regarded Adam, Noah, Abel, Lot and Moses as historic persons who lived and did the things ascribed to them in scripture.

You are mostly right here, real life, as I tend to side with you mostly in this argument.

I appreciate the contributions of secular historians but not as the standard for truth.

Getting back to Jesus' rebuke of the Sadducees and Pharisees, this is a place where the shoe fits, don't you think?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Getting back to Jesus' rebuke of the Sadducees and Pharisees, this is a place where the shoe fits, don't you think?

Hmm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

If you mean, aren't I somewhat of a Pharisee? The answer is yes. I am a sinner and as such I often see a standard that God expects, but fail miserably to meet it, shaming myself.

If you mean, aren't I somewhat of a Saducee? The answer is yes. Again because I am a sinner, I often disbelieve God and do not look for God's supernatural working in the world around me, but tend more to rely on what I can see and touch, much to my loss.

Thank God, He is gracious and forgiving.

0 Replies

Real life;
I hadn't thought about applying it to you, but to the religious leaders of today who place enormous burdens on the flock in return for precious little spiritual food. "2 Why do YOU people keep paying out money for what is not bread, and why is YOUR toil for what results in no satisfaction? Listen intently to me, and eat what is good, and let YOUR soul find its exquisite delight in fatness itself." (Isaiah 55:2)

I, too am a sinner. Hopefully, neither of us will be found to be Pharisees or Sadducees as they magnified their own sins by deliberately misleading others.

0 Replies

Hi Neologist,

Always good to hear your views. I can't say that I share your complete view of clergy, nor that it is supported by the Bible. However, that sinful men have often failed in their responsibilities as shepherds is unquestionable.

Would I have done any better? Probably not.

However, scripture does ordain positions of pastor, teacher, evangelist , prophet , apostle. Since these positions will always be filled by imperfect and sinful men, we only state the obvious when we catalogue their failings.

-------------

More to the point of the thread, however, I have been wanting to ask you to consider John the Baptist's statement that he was preparing the way for Jehovah and making His paths straight. His statement , a direct quotation of the Old Testament referring to the LORD God is plainly applied to Christ.

0 Replies

Real life,

I'm still waiting for you to refute my contradictions. Your last post was very verbose yet said very little. Instead of challenging my arguments all you did was give far fetched scenarios which do not even apply. Your response for genealogies, for instance, can easily be refuted. This is not a simple mistranslation of names. You do not need to be a scholar to figure this out, simple arithmetic will do. If you take a look at the list (I doubt you have) you will clearly see that Luke's list is fifteen generations longer than Matthew's. So not only do we have two lists with entirely different names but they are not even the same length. Yet "the lists must stand for now." Hilarious.

Quote:

I was really expecting you to come up with something a little more creative

Creative? I'll give it a shot:

In the seventh chapter of Mark, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requries a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea.

0 Replies

In response to your contention that Peter was known in the scripture by at least 3 different names...

Peter was originally called Simon but, in different circumstances in each gospel, was given the name "Rock" by Jesus. This is "Cephas" in Aramaic and "Peter" in Greek. Is Cephas the same person as Peter? Paul also mentions a "Peter" once in his letters, but does not equate Cephas and Peter as one and the same person. An early Christian scripture called The Letters of the Apostles opens with a list of 11 apostles, the third of whom is called Peter and the last of whom is called Cephas, so there certainly was a Christian tradition that Cephas and Peter were not identical. The modern tendency to assume that they are necessarily the same person is mistaken.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

In response to your contention that Peter was known in the scripture by at least 3 different names...

Peter was originally called Simon but, in different circumstances in each gospel, was given the name "Rock" by Jesus. This is "Cephas" in Aramaic and "Peter" in Greek. Is Cephas the same person as Peter? Paul also mentions a "Peter" once in his letters, but does not equate Cephas and Peter as one and the same person. An early Christian scripture called The Letters of the Apostles opens with a list of 11 apostles, the third of whom is called Peter and the last of whom is called Cephas, so there certainly was a Christian tradition that Cephas and Peter were not identical. The modern tendency to assume that they are necessarily the same person is mistaken.

The writing you refer to, The Letters of the Apostles, is not part of the Bible and therefore I do not claim it to be without error.

Paul does mention a Cephas 5 times in his letters and several of these are clear references to Peter.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

Real life,

I'm still waiting for you to refute my contradictions. Your last post was very verbose yet said very little. Instead of challenging my arguments all you did was give far fetched scenarios which do not even apply. Your response for genealogies, for instance, can easily be refuted. This is not a simple mistranslation of names. You do not need to be a scholar to figure this out, simple arithmetic will do. If you take a look at the list (I doubt you have) you will clearly see that Luke's list is fifteen generations longer than Matthew's. So not only do we have two lists with entirely different names but they are not even the same length. Yet "the lists must stand for now." Hilarious.

Re-read my post and you will find I did not mention any mistranslation. You totally mischaracterize my statement.

Now comparing the lists length, is one list more abbreviated than the other? Certainly. That much is to but state the obvious. But abbreviation is not the same thing as error.

Sorry but yours is still an argument from silence. Specifically tell us which names in the genealogies you believe do not belong there, and for each one why. We will listen.

SN95 wrote:

Creative? I'll give it a shot:

In the seventh chapter of Mark, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requries a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea.

This really is a stretch, you must admit. Just because Jesus may not have chosen a direct route from point A to point B, you believe the record of his travels here is incorrect.

Take a look at the itinerary of any traveling preacher today, or circuit rider of yesteryear and tell me if they always travel in a straight line. Why is it supposed that they should?

What if there were other stops along the way from Tyre to Sidon and from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee? Would the writer's silence concerning these stops also be counted an error by you?

And your statement that there was no road along the path that you think He took (or should have taken). C'mon now. Many instances in the gospels tell of Jesus teaching "in the wilderness" or "on a mountain" or "in a field". Do you think that this means He always stuck to the main roads? In fact it seems to indicate the opposite may have been His habit.

Lastly, you want to superimpose a place with a similar name today (20 centuries later) to tell me that the place mentioned in the Bible is in error because it doesn't match this modern location. I had hoped you would be serious, but it appears you are not.

Ah but I told you this isn't as easy as it looks. Trying to fit the stories of ancient times into your modern presuppositions of how people behaved , wrote and lived is an elusive goal which you seem to have missed.

0 Replies

It is geographically impossible for Jesus to have taken the route as reported in the bible. You cannot go through Sidon from Tyron to the Sea of Galilee, it is in the opposite direction. Is teleporting another miracle of Jesus?

Your hypothesis' are unsupported by anyone and simply "what if" scenarios that you try to use to debunk my statements. Unless you have anything significant to bring to the table I'll consider this argument over.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

It is geographically impossible for Jesus to have taken the route as reported in the bible. You cannot go through Sidon from Tyron to the Sea of Galilee, it is in the opposite direction.

The verses in Mark 7 read as follows:

24And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house,....

31And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.

It does not appear at all to say that Jesus went "through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee" as you are trying to maintain.

(Perhaps you should have read the verses in question, instead of just quoting from some author's "101 Objections I Have to the Bible".)

And if it did say it, why would that be impossible?

If I am in Dallas, and I travel to L.A. and then on to Miami, is it not correct to say that I went through L.A. on my way to Miami because that is what my schedule (or my desire, or my whim) was?

---------------------

If you say it is over for you, I guess it is because you have utterly failed to make a coherent point.

Before you try next time to criticize the Bible, I recommend you read it first. Read all of it, not just bits and pieces.

It is a large and complex volume so you may need to read it several times over before you have an inkling of the structure and content so that you might be able to frame a cogent argument.

0 Replies

Whether or not you are able to comprehend my point is of little significance to me anymore.

0 Replies

More to the point of the thread , I think it is interesting how in a short passage such as John 14-16 Jesus could have distinctively separated Himself and the Father in his disciples thinking, but seems to have gone out of His way to show them doing the same things. That is, He identifies His actions as the actions of the Father. Consider--------

Christ says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit: 26 But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU.

and that Christ will send the Holy Spirit:7 Nevertheless, I am telling YOU the truth, It is for YOUR benefit I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will by no means come to YOU; but if I do go my way, I will send him to YOU.

-----------------

Christ says that the Father will give the Holy Spirit: 16 and I will request the Father and he will give YOU another helper to be with YOU forever,

and that Christ will send the Holy Spirit: 26 When the helper arrives that I will send YOU from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which proceeds from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;

----------------

Christ says that prayer will be answered by Christ's action (I will do) 13 Also, whatever it is that YOU ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. 14 If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.:

and that prayer will be answered by the Father's action (He will give) :23 And in that day YOU will ask me no question at all. Most truly I say to YOU, If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name.

----------------

It is noteworthy that it is in this same passage that Christ says:7 If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him."

8 Philip said to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

9 Jesus said to him: "Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also].

0 Replies

Enjoying Sunny California. More later.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Neologist,

Always good to hear your views. I can't say that I share your complete view of clergy, nor that it is supported by the Bible. However, that sinful men have often failed in their responsibilities as shepherds is unquestionable.

Would I have done any better? Probably not.

However, scripture does ordain positions of pastor, teacher, evangelist , prophet , apostle. Since these positions will always be filled by imperfect and sinful men, we only state the obvious when we catalogue their failings.

-------------

More to the point of the thread, however, I have been wanting to ask you to consider John the Baptist's statement that he was preparing the way for Jehovah and making His paths straight. His statement , a direct quotation of the Old Testament referring to the LORD God is plainly applied to Christ.

Sorry to take so long. I've been running around Southern California, eagerly awaiting the birth of my first granddaughter after 8 grandsons.

Anyway, to answer your question about the representation made in John 1:23,a quote of Isaiah 40:3:

Because Jesus came to represent his father. "I have come in the name of my Father, but YOU do not receive me; if someone else arrived in his own name, YOU would receive that one" (John 5:43) "And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." (John 8:29)

Now it's your turn to answer my question, previously asked: Who is the god of this world?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:
Hi Neologist,

Always good to hear your views. I can't say that I share your complete view of clergy, nor that it is supported by the Bible. However, that sinful men have often failed in their responsibilities as shepherds is unquestionable.

Would I have done any better? Probably not.

However, scripture does ordain positions of pastor, teacher, evangelist , prophet , apostle. Since these positions will always be filled by imperfect and sinful men, we only state the obvious when we catalogue their failings.

-------------

More to the point of the thread, however, I have been wanting to ask you to consider John the Baptist's statement that he was preparing the way for Jehovah and making His paths straight. His statement , a direct quotation of the Old Testament referring to the LORD God is plainly applied to Christ.
Sorry to take so long. I've been running around Southern California, eagerly awaiting the birth of my first granddaughter after 8 grandsons.

Anyway, to answer your question about the representation made in John 1:23,a quote of Isaiah 40:3:

Because Jesus came to represent his father. "I have come in the name of my Father, but YOU do not receive me; if someone else arrived in his own name, YOU would receive that one" (John 5:43) "And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." (John 8:29)

Now it's your turn to answer my question, previously asked: Who is the god of this world?

0 Replies

I've been trying to simplify my posts for the sake of those who might be new to the thread.

I just needed a clarification for my own mind of a statement you made about gods in general. It does seem that for many Satan is their real god without their knowing.

As for your references to Jesus and Jehovah, Jesus is the perfect representation (and representative) of his father. If you received a message from Dubya Bush's personal representative would, you not tell your friends you had received a message from Dubya himself?

It is of interest that the name Jehovah, meaning "He who causes to become" is not shared with anyone else in the universe, while the name Jesus, which means "Jehovah's salvation", is shared with many. (Not to mention Joshuas and Yeshuas)

Thanks for the kind thoughts about baby. We are still waiting for the little princess to make her appearance. I'd say 'typical woman', except my youngest son was nearly 2 weeks late.

0 Replies

If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know