I believe Jesus was never a god who became man

  • Thread starter Thread starter paarsurrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by kellie
You know for a fact Jesus had the “usual male sexual genetical organs” ??
Click to expand...
Yes or No
Click to expand...
Not very difficult question. Jesus was a Jew, born in a Jewish family. He was born and fed and treated like all Jewish males. He must have been circumcised.

He was not a christian. I love Jesus as a Jew, a good or bad Jew. that is all. It is upto the Jews to decide these things.
 
Originally Posted by kellie:
You know for a fact Jesus had the “usual male sexual genetical organs” ??
Click to expand...
Yes or No
Click to expand...
planten said:
Not very difficult question. Jesus was a Jew, born in a Jewish family. He was born and fed and treated like all Jewish males. He must have been circumcised.

He was not a christian. I love Jesus as a Jew, a good or bad Jew. that is all. It is upto the Jews to decide these things.
Click to expand...
Hi

It is not at all difficult to ascertain. When a child was born, everybody knew what gender he was. A male would have the masculine parts; and female feminine parts. I think there is none to believe that he was a neutral gender or he later changed the gender. A mother or close relative do tell about it; without a doubt.He was called son of Mary not a daughter of Mary; and Mary never objected to calling him a son, that is sufficient evidence.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
 
Hi

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh. Well there seems to be more than that, I think. I am not a physician but as an ordinary man in the street I think flesh is made of soft tissues in the humans and animals. The body could consist of tissues of different solidity; some may or others may not be a part of the human body. There could be some parts having solidity lesser than the flesh while others could have solidity greater than the soft tissues or flesh. Thanks to Paul to inform us that word became flesh.

If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh. Well there seems to be more than that, I think. I am not a physician but as an ordinary man in the street I think flesh is made of soft tissues in the humans and animals. The body could consist of tissues of different solidity; some may or others may not be a part of the human body. There could be some parts having solidity lesser than the flesh while others could have solidity greater than the soft tissues or flesh. Thanks to Paul to inform us that word became flesh.

If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Your prophet is the one with the mystical theology Paars.
Not Paul and not Jesus.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh. Well there seems to be more than that, I think. I am not a physician but as an ordinary man in the street I think flesh is made of soft tissues in the humans and animals. The body could consist of tissues of different solidity; some may or others may not be a part of the human body. There could be some parts having solidity lesser than the flesh while others could have solidity greater than the soft tissues or flesh. Thanks to Paul to inform us that word became flesh.

If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks
Click to expand...
:hypno:
 
Dear paarsurrey,
paarsurrey said:
[Hi

The above does not represent views of all the non-Catholics. I love Jesus and his true teachings but I don’t believe that Jesus was ever a god who became man. Jesus had no explicit claim to it except some obscure statements narrated by others who misunderstood him. This is my sincere opinion, however, no disrespect is intended to anybody’s faith or creed.

I love Jesus and Krishna

Thanks](Hi)
I have met Hindus who believe Jesus and Krishna are the same being. What do you think about that notion?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
 
mardukm said:
Dear paarsurrey,

I have met Hindus who believe Jesus and Krishna are the same being. What do you think about that notion?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Hi

I think both were Messengers of God Allah YHWH.

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi
Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.
Click to expand...
i dont know how this expression can be taken in that manner, i laughed a full minute. oh God. groans

thus you’re saying if an amoeba wriggled along and whispered to your ears introducing itself as somebody divine you would believe it?

this has gotta be one of the most senseless comment ever…i got infected, so i dont know what im talking about either. hahahah.🤷
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh. Well there seems to be more than that, I think. I am not a physician but as an ordinary man in the street I think flesh is made of soft tissues in the humans and animals. The body could consist of tissues of different solidity; some may or others may not be a part of the human body. There could be some parts having solidity lesser than the flesh while others could have solidity greater than the soft tissues or flesh. Thanks to Paul to inform us that word became flesh.

If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Grace & Peace!

Paarsurrey, yet again I implore you to understand the theology before you attempt to draw your conclusions. Lacking that understanding, I’m afraid your posts cannot be taken particularly seriously as you will continue to draw conclusions that appear nonsensical and entirely antithetical to reason.

Three things:
  1. Paul did not innovate the idea of the Word made flesh. Please see the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which John describes the Incarnation of the Word.
  2. Flesh here is not used to describe a specific type of human body tissue as opposed to some other type, but is understood to encompass the entirety of what it means to be human–actual body, with actual human passions, an actual rational human soul, etc. Jesus was not the Word appearing to be human, he was not a phantom or a phantasm. Jesus was the Word made flesh, the Logos of God made man–the force of the word in the original Greek conveys this. Moreover, the context of the word “flesh” in the gospel and throughout the New Testament, conveys this. Your thesis, therefore, is utterly nonsensical.
  3. I mentioned in my previous post that if you needed recommendations on source materials for your study of Christianity that people would be willing to help. Would that you would just ask! But as it seems you will not, I offer these suggestions. I urge and implore you to read them:
    –“De Incarnatione” by St. Athanasius (find it here: newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm )
    –“Contra Celsus” by Origen (find it here: newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm) Book 1, chapters 69 & 70 should be particularly helpful
Again–please understand Christian theology before you draw conclusions on it based purely on your misunderstanding of it. Thank you.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy. Deo Gratias!
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Our Catholic friends would have us believe that Word became flesh or that god became flesh. Well there seems to be more than that, I think. I am not a physician but as an ordinary man in the street I think flesh is made of soft tissues in the humans and animals. The body could consist of tissues of different solidity; some may or others may not be a part of the human body. There could be some parts having solidity lesser than the flesh while others could have solidity greater than the soft tissues or flesh. Thanks to Paul to inform us that word became flesh.

If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks
Click to expand...
From your thread, I think I found the proof of why in other thread I call that you put yourself on par with God.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Even a writer of fiction should be respected and believed if he says TRUTH; nobody has exclusive rights on TRUTH, i think.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Click to expand...
So why do you insist in this forum that Jesus went to India? You may have whatever believe. When you introduce your believe, it is normal if we ask why. When we ask why, don’t run from the question please. If you can’t gain other to believe you, please stop posting the same things over and over again. That is a proof that you don’t respect others’ believe, but insist other to respect your belief.

Back to your point, if a writer of a science fiction says that the sun rise from the east, I believe that, because it is the TRUTH. But, if somebody unknown even to his/her own field of study declare something, that is another story. I must verify his/her TRUTH, against what I know, what is generally known, and the MOST IMPORTANT THING, THE FRUIT of such TRUTH.
 
paarsurrey said:
If we agree to Paul then his concept of Trinity becomes vulnerable; word became flesh, so of what did the subtle tissues thinner than flesh and or harder than flesh were made or who made them. I think Paul must have to revise his brainchild of word becoming flesh, in my opinion. Catholic-god who became flesh must be without bones; as bones are not supposed to be flesh. Paul’s mythical-god therefore cannot be homo-erectus; flesh without bones cannot stand straight.

Paul shall have now to look to at least another god who made the bones; father-god, holy ghost-god, and son-god he made the Trinity with them, now for bones he should name another god, in my opinion.

Kindly, help Paul to revise his mythical theological philosophy.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange ideas of Paul.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Please quote your source that Paul is the origin of the Trinity.
 
swariffin said:
Do you believe in Brahma and Shiva, too?
Click to expand...
Hi

Please mention their attributes.If they have attributes like that of the Trinity; then sorry, I cannot believe in them.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Please mention their attributes.If they have attributes like that of the Trinity; then sorry, I cannot believe in them.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Do you believe that Khrisna is the incarnation of Vhisnu?
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

I think I had already stated that I don’t believe in any physical incarnation.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
Click to expand...
So, who is Khrisna? a messenger of God you said. OK, fine with me.
What did Khrisna do according to you?
 
swariffin said:
So, who is Khrisna? a messenger of God you said. OK, fine with me.
What did Khrisna do according to you?
Click to expand...
Hi

He did what the Messengers do; like Jesus did or Noah did, the gave the Message, GodAllahYHWH had entrusted them to convey to their people.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top