If Jesus would got married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hasantas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sorry, but that’s just flat out not true if you accept the New Testament or even just the four gospels as scriptural. And it’s clear in the early church writings, too.

You are twisting my words. I never said it wasn’t from Scripture, but religion is more than Scripture. And Jesus and his apostles and the men they appointed were people, so quite literally, yes, insofar as Jesus and the Apostles were people I accept their doctrines.

God did not give us a book. He gave us Himself.
Gospels do not say Jesus is God but instead they say Jesus is merely human.

Did Jesus apointed some people to establish a new faith which Jesus did not confirm by Himself?

Yes Jesus and apostles were people. A good advance!
 
It’s seems clear that quoting the Bible would not move the needle on your opinion of the statement ‘Jesus is God’.

Was Jesus even a prophet?
 
There are many implicit references, especially in Matthew, which require some scriptural exegesis to mark the Old Testament references. But to start with more explicit ones:

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

John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

John 5:18, “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”

John 8:24, “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.”

John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.’”

John 10:30-33, “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Funny that Jesus and the author doesn’t correct the assumptions of those trying to stone him.
 
If Jesus is Son ofGod then children would be grandchild of God. Would not something be heritaged to grandchildren(descendants) from divinity? If God incarnated so the children
must take something from deity!

For my case Jesus was merely human so there is no any problem. I just try to point falsity of the doctrine.
Your understanding of the Christian teaching on the Trinity is incomplete.

We don’t call Jesus “Son of God” because he’s some kind of demigod biological offspring of God and Mary. I understand that the teaching on the Virgin Birth might confuse things a bit, since we do believe Jesus did not have a human biological father. But we don’t think God impregnated Mary with special God-material. As I’m sure you agree, God doesn’t have a body or anything like “divine DNA” that He could contribute.

God has existed as Farher, Son, and Holy Spirit from all eternity. At the Incarnation, the Person of the Trinity known as the Son joined His entire divine nature to a newly-created human body and soul in Mary’s womb. He was and remained truly God, and he became from that moment a true and complete human being, without mixing the two. He didn’t inherit divinity; He always had it and just added humanity to it.

There’s no reason to think His body was exceptional or superhuman in any way that could be inherited by His children if He’d had any. Nor is the Incarnation itself some thing that is inheritable. You can’t have a person who is partly God and partly human. As you would agree, there is and can be only one God.
 
Your understanding of the Christian teaching on the Trinity is incomplete.

We don’t call Jesus “Son of God” because he’s some kind of demigod biological offspring of God and Mary. I understand that the teaching on the Virgin Birth might confuse things a bit, since we do believe Jesus did not have a human biological father. But we don’t think God impregnated Mary with special God-material. As I’m sure you agree, God doesn’t have a body or anything like “divine DNA” that He could contribute.

God has existed as Farher, Son, and Holy Spirit from all eternity. At the Incarnation, the Person of the Trinity known as the Son joined His entire divine nature to a newly-created human body and soul in Mary’s womb. He was and remained truly God, and he became from that moment a true and complete human being, without mixing the two. He didn’t inherit divinity; He always had it and just added humanity to it.

There’s no reason to think His body was exceptional or superhuman in any way that could be inherited by His children if He’d had any. Nor is the Incarnation itself some thing that is inheritable. You can’t have a person who is partly God and partly human. As you would agree, there is and can be only one God.
So you understand that there is no any one who is both god and human!

You say God has no bodyor anything like divine DNA. Jesus had a body so Jesus was not God.
If Son joined His entire divine nature to a newly-created human body and soul so the children must be divine from that mixed body and soul.

God is not a biological father and Jesus could be a biological father so Jesus was not God.

“There’s no reason to think His body was exceptional or superhuman in any way that could be inherited by His children if He’d had any.”

The issue is not body but the soul in body. You assume the soul of Jesus as partly divine and partly human or something complex. If divine nature has no effect in human nature then there is no need to say that divine nature dwelt in body. Indeed divine nature do not get into or transform in material. Divine nature is always out of time and matter.
 
What is different with Greek mythology? Their gods become human and you say god incarnate!
Wrong, their gods did not become human. they stayed gods. When a god mated with a human in Greek mythology, the offspring became a HERO such as Hercules or Theseus or Perseus, Heroes has certain superpowers, but they were not gods.

Jesus was not a superhero. He was fully human while he was on earth.

Don’t mix up Greek mythology with Christianity.
 
Gospels do not say Jesus is God but instead they say Jesus is merely human.

Did Jesus apointed some people to establish a new faith which Jesus did not confirm by Himself?

Yes Jesus and apostles were people. A good advance!
I don’t think you know your Gospels very well. Try gospel of John. You will see that a Jesus equals God.
 
Your understanding of the Christian teaching on the Trinity is incomplete.

We don’t call Jesus “Son of God” because he’s some kind of demigod biological offspring of God and Mary. I understand that the teaching on the Virgin Birth might confuse things a bit, since we do believe Jesus did not have a human biological father. But we don’t think God impregnated Mary with special God-material. As I’m sure you agree, God doesn’t have a body or anything like “divine DNA” that He could contribute.

God has existed as Farher, Son, and Holy Spirit from all eternity. At the Incarnation, the Person of the Trinity known as the Son joined His entire divine nature to a newly-created human body and soul in Mary’s womb. He was and remained truly God, and he became from that moment a true and complete human being, without mixing the two. He didn’t inherit divinity; He always had it and just added humanity to it.

There’s no reason to think His body was exceptional or superhuman in any way that could be inherited by His children if He’d had any. Nor is the Incarnation itself some thing that is inheritable. You can’t have a person who is partly God and partly human. As you would agree, there is and can be only one God.
👍
 
40.png
hasantas:
You assume the soul of Jesus as partly divine and partly human… . .
No we don’t.
 
So you understand that there is no any one who is both god and human!

You say God has no bodyor anything like divine DNA. Jesus had a body so Jesus was not God.
If Son joined His entire divine nature to a newly-created human body and soul so the children must be divine from that mixed body and soul.

God is not a biological father and Jesus could be a biological father so Jesus was not God.

“There’s no reason to think His body was exceptional or superhuman in any way that could be inherited by His children if He’d had any.”

The issue is not body but the soul in body. You assume the soul of Jesus as partly divine and partly human or something complex. If divine nature has no effect in human nature then there is no need to say that divine nature dwelt in body. Indeed divine nature do not get into or transform in material. Divine nature is always out of time and matter.
It’s a mystery, not easily explained, yet true none-the-less. Doesn’t Islam have any mysteries?
 
So you understand that there is no any one who is both god and human!
There is no one who is partly God and partly human.

Jesus is 100% God, joined to (but not mixed with) a human body and soul. Not the same thing.
You say God has no bodyor anything like divine DNA. Jesus had a body so Jesus was not God.
Nothing says that God.can’t take on a body, just that He does not have one inherently.
If Son joined His entire divine nature to a newly-created human body and soul so the children must be divine from that mixed body and soul.
Joined, not mixed. Imagine two things permanently glued together. They don’t intermingle; the individual characteristics of each object aren’t altered. They’re just joined.
God is not a biological father and Jesus could be a biological father so Jesus was not God.
Again, this is a matter of God taking on a human body and soul.with the inherent characteristics of those things. The inherent nature of God is not altered.
“There’s no reason to think His body was exceptional or superhuman in any way that could be inherited by His children if He’d had any.”
The issue is not body but the soul in body. You assume the soul of Jesus as partly divine and partly human or something complex. If divine nature has no effect in human nature then there is no need to say that divine nature dwelt in body. Indeed divine nature do not get into or transform in material. Divine nature is always out of time and matter.
First of all, Jesus had an ordinary (albeit undamaged) human soul. He also retained the full divine nature. The two did not mix.

Second, perhaps it’s different in Islam, but in Catholicism the soul is not inherited. God creates a new soul as each child is conceived. The parents’ characteristics don’t have anything to do with that part. So even if there had been something superhuman about Jesus’ soul, that would not have passed to His children unless God independently chose to give them the same unusual kind of soul. And He could just as easily make that choice for any child, not just ones related to Jesus.
 
God is not some type of substance mixing with Jesus’ physicality (or anything else). The divine nature of Jesus is one with him but it is immaterial.
 
There are many implicit references, especially in Matthew, which require some scriptural exegesis to mark the Old Testament references. But to start with more explicit ones:

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

.
Look at that quote:

…but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).

-…Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word:

And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Gen. 39:2).
And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Ex. 19:17).
And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps. 2:4).
They believed in the name of His word (Ps. 106:12). [3]

-The logos, that is, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a “spirit-book” somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

more in that :biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1
 
The Word was not only with God and became flesh. The Word was God from the beginning.

Plus the rest of the context of John which you cut out, down to Thomas’ declaration, “My lord and my God!” to Jesus.
 
=Usagi;13859553]There is no one who is partly God and partly human.
Jesus is 100% God, joined to (but not mixed with) a human body and soul. Not the same thing.
God is eternal and you cannot add to or take something from eternity!

Jesus is human on the earth and He transfom into God in Heavens!?

Jesus is % 100 God and % 100 human, right? Then one part of Jesus is God and the other is human so Jesus is partly God and partly human!
Nothing says that God.can’t take on a body, just that He does not have one inherently.
God do not take on a body but God creates all bodies.
Joined, not mixed. Imagine two things permanently glued together. They don’t intermingle; the individual characteristics of each object aren’t altered. They’re just joined.
If divine nature in body has no effect and authorize then why claim it that Jesus was 100% divine? Jesus was only a human, wasn’t He? Did Jesus have any divine attribute on the earth?

Divine nature do not join anything into eternity.
Again, this is a matter of God taking on a human body and soul.with the inherent characteristics of those things. The inherent nature of God is not altered.
In that way God joined/join all souls and bodies! Is every one god? God interact all souls .
First of all, Jesus had an ordinary (albeit undamaged) human soul. He also retained the full divine nature. The two did not mix.
Can explain how you put the divine and eternal essence into material?
Second, perhaps it’s different in Islam, but in Catholicism the soul is not inherited. God creates a new soul as each child is conceived. The parents’ characteristics don’t have anything to do with that part. So even if there had been something superhuman about Jesus’ soul, that would not have passed to His children unless God independently chose to give them the same unusual kind of soul. And He could just as easily make that choice for any child, not just ones related to Jesus.
No, Muslims are not extraterrestrial. Soul is(was) being created apart for every one and soul is not something which is inherited by DNA. But child of human has a human soul and calf of a cow has an animal soul. So child of a human god would have mixed(or joined) soul.
 
Jesus had a human soul as part of his human nature. He was also fully God. The soul is human, though. It’s not a hybrid soul.

An apple can be red and round at the same time. Its redness does not affect its roundness. Its roundness does not affect its redness. You do not say the apple is “partly red” because it is also round, or that the apple is partly round because it is also red. Jesus was not partly God. He was fully God. Jesus was not partly man. He was fully man.

The divine nature of Jesus is immaterial and immutable. It was not affected by time and space, but was eternal.

You also keep speaking as if the divinity is some sort of substance oozing through time and space and flesh. It’s not.
 
Jesus is % 100 God and % 100 human, right? Then one part of Jesus is God and the other is human so Jesus is partly God and partly human!

.
Don’t you mean 50% human 50% God? How could something be 200%?
 
Don’t you mean 50% human 50% God? How could something be 200%?
There are two parts: human and divine natures. The divine part inherintly is 100% divine and human part inherintly is 100% human. That makes Jesus 100% human god!

For me God is 100% divine and Jesus is 100% human. But God is not 100% human and human is not 100% divine.
 
hasantas, I think there is some confusion about what we mean by two natures. It’s natural to think of all things having one nature. Humans have a human nature. Trees have a tree nature. A dog has an animal nature. These beings only have one nature.

As such, it can be easy to think that Christians are claiming Jesus had one hybrid nature, both human and divine. But that is not what we say. Jesus did not have one mixed nature of God and man. He had the nature of man. He had the nature of God. Having one nature did not affect the other. He was not a hybrid being standing in the middle, but a being that existed fully on both sides at once. It is false to continually try to speak in terms of Jesus having just one nature, at least when trying to speak against Christian arguments.

Edit: This was written before hasantas’ most recent post.
 
For me God is 100% divine and Jesus is 100% human. But God is not 100% human and human is not 100% divine.
Divine nature is not human and human nature is not divine. That much is true.

Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. If we take out the “and” we speak as if he has one mixed nature, which is against our beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top