The debate "Do you belive that Jesus is the son of God" was started by
November 20, 2019, 4:42 am.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jrardin12 posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
carson, jrardin12, Cisco, honey_gunner and 15 visitors agree.
historybuff, diecinueve and 9 visitors disagree.
Jesus Is God with the personality of the Son.
well he isnt daddy to jesus either. he didnt copulate with the "virgin" mary with sperm and sex, he just created life inside of her. whats the difference?
Used to describe a relationship with*
My point being it's clearly not the same as your daddy when it's used to describe inanimate objects as well.
It is one God with three personalities.
All mankind is his Creation, but not His sons. John 1:12 says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
father of creation AND humanity
Being the father of creation doesn't necessarily make us his sons though. I do think you are taking it out of context.
really? cause when i google god the father it specifically defines him as the father of all creation and all humanity.
is their interpretation wrong? or is yours selective because you dont like my context.
and 3 whats in 1 who?
i get the what and the who, i dont get the how and most importantly, why?!? what is the point of this? isnt omnipresence more then enough?
The Trinity is three Whats in one Who.
All mankind are not His sons.
if God is the father, aren't we all his sons?
i mean it isnt like God actually reproduced with the *virgin* Mary.
if jesus is god, then he is not the son of god.
what is the point of the trinity concept?
Everything you have ever heard about Jesus comes from incredibly biased and dubious sources. Nothing about his life was written until about 80 years after his death. No one that ever met him wrote about him. It is unlikely that anyone who even had 2nd hand knowledge (ie they talked to someone who met jesus) wrote about him. The stories we have were written decades, in some cases over 100 years after his death by people who don't know if what they wrote was true.
It's a bit like this. your friend tells you a story he heard from a guy, who heard it from a guy, who heard it from another guy who might have been there. You write that story down without being able to confirm if it is true or not. Someone else reads your story and takes it to be the literal truth. They collect your story and lots of other similar stories and make a book out of it. That book is then edited by other people who decide which parts they like and which parts they don't like. Should someone reading the final product be sure that the things in the book are true? No one knows if the original story was even true, then it got edited later by people with a specific angle. There is no way to know if any of it happened at all like the book says.
Historians are reasonable sure that Jesus of Nazareth existed. That is pretty much as far as the historical record can go. They can't even definitively be sure he did exist. it isn't impossible that the entire story is fabricated. But most likely Jesus was like the dozen other "messiahs" wandering the middle east at the time. Just a charlatan or a lunatic out spreading stories. But by chance his story got spread and believed. It eventually morphed into a religion that is completely antithetical to the things he supposedly preached.