Pope: Jesus Just a Man, Not God

[BetaAsPhuck]

It's a psychological inferiority complex.

Leftists take contrarian positions to feel good about themselves, because it makes them feel like they know something that the rest of the "dumb sheeple" don't know.

The Far Right IME has become largely anti-Christianity, and pro European paganism (I am 100% ded srs), they say that Jesus was a Jews, and Christianity is a subversive Jewish religion, that took white people away from their roots of European Paganism.

The first time I personally came across criticism and mockery of Christianity was from Libertarians (specifically, followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy).

[adimare]

I know a lot of Catholics who believe this. If the pope really said it, I think you're all misunderstanding him. It doesn't mean that Jesus was not God's son, or that there was nothing special about him. It means that once he was sent to Earth he experienced life as nothing more than a man; so all the revelations, miracles, etc could have been performed by anyone with enough faith, not just by the son of God.

Basically, the idea is that if life's a videogame, he was playing with regular settings, not God mode, which would actually make all of his his achievements more impressive.

[CalmWind]

I know a lot of Catholics who believe this. If the pope really said it, I think you're all misunderstanding him. It doesn't mean that Jesus was not God's son, or that there was nothing special about him. It means that once he was sent to Earth he experienced life as nothing more than a man; so all the revelations, miracles, etc could have been performed by anyone with enough faith, not just by the son of God.

Basically, the idea is that if life's a videogame, he was playing with regular settings, not God mode, which would actually make all of his his achievements more impressive.

If that were true, then he would have never performed a single miracle, or calmed the storm at sea, or....


this is blasphemy to say that Jesus was not God.


John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.


God became a Man, but he was still God. And he showed as much when he performed miracles.

[adimare]

If that were true, then he would have never performed a single miracle, or calmed the storm at sea, or....

The point is that it doesn't take godly powers to achieve any of those things, anyone could do it if they had the faith that Jesus did. Don't you think that achieving those miracles as a man is far more impressive than achieving them as a God?

[GreatOldOne]

Why do all leftist cucks love to make fun of religion and religious people?

Allah's will

[Weightaholic]

Whether you believe it or not... have some respect people.

No. Respect is earned.

[Weightaholic]

It's a psychological inferiority complex.

Leftists take contrarian positions to feel good about themselves, because it makes them feel like they know something that the rest of the "dumb sheeple" don't know.

Psychobabble claptrap.

[isingmodel]

Saying he was “just a man” is one of the most disrespectful things I’ve ever heard, given he has died in all of our behalf, out of love for us, just so we have a chance to save ourselves, out of our own free will, nothing forced, if we want to appreciate what he’s done for us, he wants us to follow his fathers direction as he did when he lived as a human, he humbled himself and took on our form, to be a perfect model to follow, which he was. No, he is not God, but he is the son of God and should be treated as such. Whether you believe it or not... have some respect people.
Here, one of the most common scriptures in the bible, clearly showing he was no ordinary man and that he’s God’s son...

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” -John 3:16

“he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.”
-Philippians 2:7-10

None of this happened so why should we give a ****?

[CalmWind]

The point is that it doesn't take godly powers to achieve any of those things, anyone could do it if they had the faith that Jesus did. Don't you think that achieving those miracles as a man is far more impressive than achieving them as a God?

Even the Catholic church has held the diety of Christ. It's not in question.

What you are saying is basically Arianism, and this was the first heresey that the first ecumenical council dealt with.


John 1:1-14 is clear on it

[JaymzJ]

He was just a man. You've been brainwashed into believing he died for your sins. I was raised in the cult of Christianity as well but transcended it in my youth. I know a lot of adults who accept it, no coincidence it's the religion of your culture. Had you been born in India you'd likely be a Hindu arguing for the authenticity of Vishnu.

Many who claim to be Christians aren’t really Christians, almost all religions are hypocritical and misinterpret the bible IMO. I’ve questioned my own religion, looked into these pressing questions, and made a conscious decision by way of baptism to dedicate my life to God. Much different than how most religions do baptism.. sprinkling water on their heads as babies, like that’s going to do them any good, they can’t even think for themselves yet. Nobody brainwashed me, I wasn’t coaxed into believing anything.

[JaymzJ]

Honest question, what does a Bible verse "clearly showing" something really mean? For obvious reasons, this is not evidence in itself.

Also considering the question of Jesus's historicity is not disrespect, if this is what you are referring to- it's merely considering a historical question. I think the above posts in general show that there are surely questions, and none of this is known with the certainty of say "JFK existed". As for miracles etc, a separate question, no there is no direct evidence of this, and must be believed on faith (I ask again....what exactly is so bad for a matter like this to come down to faith? Why do some Christians not want it to come down to faith? If God could be proven somehow, not that this could happen, then believing in God would be as ordinary as believing 2+2=4 or to use a historical example, acknowledging that World War 2 happened....huh? Thought the idea was supposed to be about faith. Also notice that almost no one denies the above facts, contrast to the large number of people in world who are not religious or believe in God....this tells you something).

You mention disrepect.....seems there is just as much, if not more, disparaging remarks coming from the Christian side here ITT- many personal attacks aimed at other posters etc, see my last post.

You have a point about faith, I’ll give you that, it is a must
“without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him” -Heb 11:6

Regarding respect, did you read the rest of OP’s post!? And I don’t expect everyone to believe what I believe, then I would be disrespectful myself, but most everyone knows that the majority of people who are religious believe that Jesus died for our sins, so to bluntly say he was just a man is insulting, even as a human being, he was an extraordinary man and the greatest teacher to ever live. (to those who believe in Jesus)

[JaymzJ]

Consider this archaeological discovery, if you visit the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, you can see a stone that has an inscription that names Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was the one that caved under pressure and ordered the execution of Jesus. That’s a bit of authenticity no?

[KyleAaron]

Did the pope really say that or did this fake news blogger deliberately misquote him to push an agenda?

Which seems more likely?

[numberguy12]

Consider this archaeological discovery, if you visit the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, you can see a stone that has an inscription that names Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was the one that caved under pressure and ordered the execution of Jesus. That’s a bit of authenticity no?

Nope. Authenticity for what? Pontius Pilate? That's not the question at hand.

It's like if someone wrote a story today about some miraculous dude Person X who lived around 1940, who could fly and turn lead into gold, and do all kinds of impossible things....but the story includes a mention of FDR. Then, in 2000 years, it is discovered that there is evidence of FDR's existence....thus the story must be genuine and this is evidence of Person X's existence and his miraculous deeds. Doesn't work like that. It is entirely possible, actually that the person writing the story is merely placing Person X into a known past with known historical figures, etc. In fact, wouldn't you expect the author of the story to use real figures, to increase belief?

[JaymzJ]

Nope. Authenticity for what? Pontius Pilate? That's not the question at hand.

It's like if someone wrote a story today about some miraculous dude Person X who lived around 1940, who could fly and turn lead into gold, and do all kinds of impossible things....but the story includes a mention of FDR. Then, in 2000 years, it is discovered that there is evidence of FDR's existence....thus the story must be genuine and this is evidence of Person X's existence and his miraculous deeds. Doesn't work like that. It is entirely possible, actually that the person writing the story is merely placing Person X into a known past with known historical figures, etc. In fact, wouldn't you expect the author of the story to use real figures, to increase belief?

There isn’t hardly anything at all known about Pontius’ personal history... but what we do know...
The Roman governor (prefect) of Judea appointed by Emperor Tiberius in 26 C.E. ... Pilate is mentioned by non-Biblical writers, including Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote that Pilate ordered the execution of Christ during the reign of Tiberius.

[numberguy12]

There isn’t hardly anything at all known about Pontius’ personal history... but what we do know...
The Roman governor (prefect) of Judea appointed by Emperor Tiberius in 26 C.E. ... Pilate is mentioned by non-Biblical writers, including Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote that Pilate ordered the execution of Christ during the reign of Tiberius.

....ok? This has nothing to do with the point of my post. This is not, in itself, evidence for Jesus, or his deeds. The writers of the gospels could have just placed the known figure Pilate into the story. Tacitus, btw, used the wrong title in reference to Pilate- procurator instead of prefect- which raises its own questions, but that's another topic.

[JaymzJ]

....ok? This has nothing to do with the point of my post. This is not, in itself, evidence for Jesus, or his deeds. The writers of the gospels could have just placed the known figure Pilate into the story. Tacitus, btw, used the wrong title in reference to Pilate- procurator instead of prefect- which raises its own questions, but that's another topic.

One of the only things Pontius was known for was his dealings with Jesus, that’s my point. But meh, I just want to relax the rest of my long weekend bro, lol. PM if you want, later

[adimare]

Even the Catholic church has held the diety of Christ. It's not in question.

What you are saying is basically Arianism, and this was the first heresey that the first ecumenical council dealt with.


John 1:1-14 is clear on it

Strong reading comprehension. Plz re-read my first post. What I said was many Catholics believe that although yes, he was a God, everything he did once he was sent to Earth was done as a man with impeccable faith, and could in theory be achieved by any man with enough faith, not exclusively by a God.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the pope was talking about if he really said it, and I also understand why he wouldn't say it publicly. Seems like a lot of people wouldn't understand the nuance and would just think he said Jesus wasn't God.

[Weightaholic]

Nope. Authenticity for what? Pontius Pilate? That's not the question at hand.

It's like if someone wrote a story today about some miraculous dude Person X who lived around 1940, who could fly and turn lead into gold, and do all kinds of impossible things....but the story includes a mention of FDR. Then, in 2000 years, it is discovered that there is evidence of FDR's existence....thus the story must be genuine and this is evidence of Person X's existence and his miraculous deeds. Doesn't work like that. It is entirely possible, actually that the person writing the story is merely placing Person X into a known past with known historical figures, etc. In fact, wouldn't you expect the author of the story to use real figures, to increase belief?

NYC is real, therefore Spider-Man is real. And amazing.

[BFast55]

These threads are all athiest rep circle jerks. Plus they're boring.

[numberguy12]

These threads are all athiest rep circle jerks. Plus they're boring.

...maybe instead of "athiest", whatever that is, circle jerks, it's just people discussing a historical question. If it's boring to you, why post in it...10/10 contribution.

[Tamorlane]

Many who claim to be Christians aren’t really Christians, almost all religions are hypocritical and misinterpret the bible IMO.

CINOs. All branches of Christianity say the same thing about each other. Jews believe in the old testament and Muslims believe in both.

I’ve questioned my own religion, looked into these pressing questions, and made a conscious decision by way of baptism to dedicate my life to God.

That's good, and I bet it gives you great comfort. But that doesn't validate the teachings. I'd argue it's a wrong and misguided path. While it can bring people comfort and encourage a moral lifestyle it doesn't lead to further knowledge about life itself. In fact worshiping something eternal is one of the most misguided things a person can do.

Much different than how most religions do baptism.. sprinkling water on their heads as babies, like that’s going to do them any good, they can’t even think for themselves yet. Nobody brainwashed me, I wasn’t coaxed into believing anything.

I'm pretty sure the branches of Christianity that conduct baptism such as the Roman Catholics do so as a lineage to John the Baptist's ritual on Jesus. It has to do with the concept of "original sin". Something i've spoken about here before in my past, is that the Bible still had tidbit teachings indicating reincarnation that had been removed to focus on an eternal god worship. One example is when Jesus and his disciples came across a man blind from birth. His disciples clearly asked Jesus whether it was the man's fault he was born blind or his parents. Without having lived prior how could it be the man's fault.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+9&version=NIV

Of course the cookie cutter Jesus response is that it was neither's fault, it was to display the magical powers of God.

Which branch of Christianity do you follow?

[Jayarbie]

Consider this archaeological discovery, if you visit the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, you can see a stone that has an inscription that names Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was the one that caved under pressure and ordered the execution of Jesus. That’s a bit of authenticity no?

No one is disputing that Pilate was a real person, and Jesus may have been a real person as well. That his father is actually a grand wizard living in the sky is the part that is a little far fetched. I'll need to see a paternity test for that one.

[sy2502]

If that were true, then he would have never performed a single miracle,

He didn't.

[BetaAsPhuck]

One example is when Jesus and his disciples came across a man blind from birth. His disciples clearly asked Jesus whether it was the man's fault he was born blind or his parents. Without having lived prior how could it be the man's fault.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+9&version=NIV

Of course the cookie cutter Jesus response is that it was neither's fault, it was to display the magical powers of God.

Which branch of Christianity do you follow?

I've heard that argument before, and I made it when I was into 'new age beliefs'.

A different interpretation is that it was a demonstration that they were mistaken in their assumptions. They asked about past lives, and Jesus negated their assumption.

(I'm not even 'against' the notion of reincarnation, I'm just saying that those kind of arguments can be easily reframed.)

[JaymzJ]

I’m not getting into reincarnation (which I don’t believe in) or any more off shoots of this subject. Sorry fellas, at least I think we can all agree that striving for a moral lifestyle as Tamorlane said is the best way to live regardless of what we believe. I usually just like quoting scripture in practical ways, wasn’t looking to get into any deep discussions tbh, I’m going through a lot in my life right now and I can’t take much more accumulative stress so forgive me for bailing on this discussion, thanks. I’m going to leave one more scripture before I peace out tho, lol. Brb

[numberguy12]

I'm a skeptic for the most part, about most claims that seem out there. But let's go ahead and mention a few things *most* militant atheist types tend to claim to believe, while viewing it as unquestionable gospel truths in their own right.

1. The Big Bang Theory - Possible? Yes. A decent concept to imagine the origins of the universe? Sure. Verifiable from empirical scientific evidence the way most atheists claim to demand about everything? Not even close.

2. Global warming that was man made and will be the result of the end of the world/humanity in the near future - Are the global temperatures changing? Yes. It always is. The problem with this one is that they blame everything on industrialization and humans in general, as if the natural cycles of an increase wouldn't be happening (at least for the most part) regardless. They ignore the fact that the planet has experienced much higher global temperatures long before humans even existed. They ignore most of the data that significantly predates industrialization because it throws their "the sky is falling, so vote for Democrats/socialists and give the government more money" narrative about it into question. The fact that bumbling fools like AOC and Al Gore with his private jets and mansions are the political mascots for the agenda should tell you something.

3. Evolution - I buy into this one myself, for the most part. It seems like a reasonable theory based on the evidence available. Reasonable enough to state it as an official *scientific theory* as it is, in fact. That being said, verifying non-species changing via adaptations and looking at forever highly incomplete fossil records is not the same as being able to conduct and apply the entire scientific method in labs or outside of them. A great deal of basic logic is involved in drawing the conclusions - which is NOT the same as pure empirical evidence. My problem with the evolution concept is the way most militant atheists aren't able to distinguish these differences.


But then taking all those things, there seems to be no amount of logical (admittedly not empirical and unquestionable) evidence to make them strongly entertain the existence of a historical Jesus figure, because "That's not the scientific method! It"s not ENOUGH evidence!!!". If you want to be that big of a hardangus when it comes to what you consider evidence and proof, then fine. Go ahead. Just don't change the rules and label other conclusions that you believe in largely based on evidence that isn't to that same standard as it is convienient for your political agenda world views and still talk about what a "skeptic" and "independent, logical thinker" you view yourself as.

Apparently you are trying to bring topics like evolution and Big Bang cosmology into this, but read my post you quoted very carefully, and think about how relevant- or not relevant- your response is to that post. This thread is not about scientific concepts like evolution or the Big Bang, the discussion is about Jesus and questions about miracles/historicity.

Besides the misunderstanding of science in the above post (no, you don't need to have to recreate the Big Bang in the lab or have video of it in order for it to be a very legitimate scientific theory), consider the fact that you are loosely comparing things like Jesus's existence and miracles (arguably having no supporting evidence at all), to something like evolution, which is chock full of evidence from all kinds of fields such as microbiology, genetics, and paleontology. No, it seems that evolution has indeed occurred and does a wonderful job explaining the sheer variation of present day life we see in the biosphere around us. But this isn't a thread about evolution, so.....

[JaymzJ]

No one is disputing that Pilate was a real person, and Jesus may have been a real person as well. That his father is actually a grand wizard living in the sky is the part that is a little far fetched. I'll need to see a paternity test for that one.

“Therefore, we do not give up, but even if the man we are outside is wasting away, certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. For though the tribulation is momentary and light, it works out for us a glory that is of more and more surpassing greatness and is everlasting; while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.”
-2Corinthians 4:16-18
^Always continue to try to refine yourselves daily, have faith in the things unseen, don’t just focus on what you can see. You can’t see wind but you know it’s there, you know it exists.

[sy2502]

1. The Big Bang Theory - Possible? Yes. A decent concept to imagine the origins of the universe? Sure. Verifiable from empirical scientific evidence the way most atheists claim to demand about everything? Not even close.

So you reject the Big Bang Theory because you don't think there's enough empirical evidence for it, but you accept the virgin birth, or Jesus turning water into wine because... there's absolutely zero empirical evidence for it?

[hendrixfreak70]

So you reject the Big Bang Theory because you don't think there's enough empirical evidence for it, but you accept the virgin birth, or Jesus turning water into wine because... there's absolutely zero empirical evidence for it?

Nope, I'd argue that since neither of us were present for either event, we have to go by faith with both propositions. Inb4 there is evidence of the Big Bang Theory.