One of the things that used to annoy me in the new testament was the "believe in Jesus" message. Any explainations seemed fuzzy at best so I decided to take a run at it from behind and find the definintion of an Un-Believer.Here is what I came up with and I welcome other opinions. Many of the people around Jesus were Jews, they walked with him, talked with him, listened to his teachings and witnessed his miracles. They could not then deny a person named Jesus was in thier midst yet they were "Unbeliever in Jesus" The point when the jews rejected Jesus appears to be when he refered to Jehovah God as being his Father. This was unacceptable to many because Jesus was saying in essence that the human woman Mary was his mother and Jehovah God in Heaven was his father. The Jews considered this blasphemy that Jesus would claim Divine origins. We could get off in a debate forever about the Trinity etc which I do not wish to do here. At the very least was Jesus not half God and half human? I hate my choice of words but do not know another way to say it. Is it fair to say Jesus was like God come to earth in the form of a man.It appears that is what a believer must believe.I cannot see it any other way.Any respose appreciated.
What Do Un-Believers Not Believe?
What does it mean, to be "divine"?
Does it mean that he was a spirit creature? If so, why doesn't the Bible say so?
the definition given in the Insight book is:"That which belongs to God or pertains to him. that which is godlike or heavenly."
On face value, this seems to be skirting around the inevitable big "T' to me.
On the other hand, the Insight book points out 2 Peter 1:3,4 in regard to anointed Christians (what other sort are there?) they "may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust."
Could this latter text refer to having Jesus in our hearts, rather than humans going to heaven, as the Insight book states?
On balance, then, I go for the orthodox Christian view. It takes less explaining than the W/T view!
What a great topic you've introduced. I have to leave for work right now, but I'll get back to you this afternoon. That will give me a chance to think about this alot.
One thing I can tell you about my personal un-belief is that I utterly reject the idea that the WTB&TS is the only "channel of communication" God is using to communicate with his children on earth. I think those making that claim are in deep, deep trouble with God, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. The incredible arrogance of that claim is breath-taking. But enough. Back this afternoon.
there has been much discussion about this, in fact thereis debate over the issue as to whether JESUS/Emmanuel
which means as said below
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Many feel that the one who talked to Adam, to Noah to Abraham was the same guy. The storngs concordance seems to support this view, that Jesus being the firstborn of all creation all things coming to be from him.
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very ~first,~ to write unto thee in order,
The footnote to this indicates that Luke unlike Matthew and John did not witness all these things himself..but got the understanding form the First or from Jesus in spirit , as Paul did.
Which brings up another interesting point, Luke is the only one of the (4) gospels to mention what the evildoer say about being in paradise. John was there with Mary , but he did not record it. Does any one think that with the crowds that gathered around this scene, anyone could have heard what Jesus was saying to his fellow hangers , being ten ft up in the air.
mensa163 great question!
when the jews rejected Jesus appears to be when he refered to Jehovah God as being his Father. This was unacceptable to many because Jesus was saying in essence that the human woman Mary was his mother and Jehovah God in Heaven was his father.
I don't think that was the point of Jesus words, I believe what they considered blasphemy was Jesus claiming to be th sons of God, or that Jehovah was his Father.
To the Jews, Jehovah was God, the Creator of all things, NEVER was he ever referred to as "Father." Jesus introduced a new arrangement, God was our Father, we can be his "sons." Never did the Jews ever see God in this way, as a father, although Jehovah referred to the nation of Israel as daughters and used the analogy of being like a mother or a husband to them, it was always as a nation, as a people, never as individuals. The closes was Abraham being a "Friend of God."
Less Religion and more Jesus!
Stephen asked about Luke being the only one to record Jesus' conversation with the evildoer. Yet Luke was not there. John was there but never mentioned it. That is a question that has been crossing my mind lately. Should it be there in the first place?
Could it have been inserted later in some texts as a way to promote an unbiblical doctrine? Thus the controversy over the comma?
Stephen, I'm one of those who believes that Jesus as the Logos, the Word of God, was indeed the one who spoke to Adam, the 'Angel" who stayed with Abraham, etc. Personally, when we really look at the big picture, Jesus IS our creator, he IS our God, but in the bigger picture, Jehovah is supreme, having put ALL under Jesus, because as we know, Jehovah cannot deal with imperfection.
As to the Luke account, I'm sure John and Mary heard it, being so close, however, I doubt very much Jesus was shouting at the top of his lungs when he made those remarks. That being said, I think it is a matter of punctuation. There are no commas in the Greek.
Also, scholars for years have been claiming that there is a fifth Gospel, which they call the "Q" document, a gospel which the Gospel writers would have referred to when they wrote their own, because of so many of the similiarities in each Gospel.
Less Religion and more Jesus!
The Jews were also severely jealous of Jesus. They loved to get the attention from the people as being the really religious ones. Jesus was stealing their limelight. John 12:17
The multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, was testifying.
For this cause also the multitude went and met him, because they heard that he had done this sign.
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "See how you accomplish nothing. Behold, the world has gone after him."
Divine nature......yes I agree we can "partake in the divine nature". This may even refer to the Holy Spirit working in us or also the term "Jesus in our hearts"
The way I understand Jesus claim goes something like this.........All of us could rightly refer to God as our Father In heaven and this would be perfectly acceptable. However if I said God is my "daddy" it would give a whole different meaning and I would be in error. In my way of seeing it Jesus refered to God as "his daddy" which angered the Jews around him. Forgive my choice of words but it is the easiest way to describe it.
You hit the nail on the head! Anyone who wishes merely to make Jesus divine are really trying to avoid any possibility that Jesus may indeed be "God among us". This is my reason to try to clearly define an un-believer which in turn should clearly define a believer. Just about everybody in the world and many religions will allow Jesus to be a great teacher, a prophet , a perfect man, or anything else with no problem. It is when you try to refer to Jesus as God all the rebellion is arroused. I once had a conversation with a new-ager type . She said we were all Gods, or we could all attain godhood by searching deep in our conscience selves etc. I went along with her for a few minutes and then asked her if it was possible for Jesus Christ to be God. She was furious and said "absolutely not true". I have found this intriguing through the years that many people will allow just about anything to be God but never Jesus Christ. This started my quest in defining an Un-believer.
Hi... I pead guilty as being one of those people who used to think only "my church" had it right, but have come a long way since. I look forward to your slant on this unbeliever stuff