Would the divinity of Jesus be affected by the consideration of a finite beginning?

[MadRat]

NOTE: This is a topic for the Christians that believe in the divinity of Jesus, not for people that want to mock his existence.

Would the divinity of Jesus be affected by the consideration of a finite beginning?

The origin of Jesus is taught that because he is divine then he had no beginning in the sense of a child having a conception date. Jesus is said to have always existed, but his presence was foretold by prophecy and revealed through birth. It was the mission of Jesus to bring man back to God by offering them eternal life if they trusted in him. It is a heresy in the Catholic church to doubt that he existed before his birth. Any heresy is punishable with excommunication, which means that you cannot go to Heaven.

I would like to know the rationalization of there being no beginning to the life of Jesus. To be divine does require an infinite lifespan, which is the basis of saying Jesus had no beginning. If Jesus is the son of God then it makes sense that he has an infinite existence. But Jesus was also the new covenant, the new bridge (or promise) between God and man.

I would think it a greater miracle that Jesus had a finite beginning. If Jesus had a finite beginning then it would show the bridge between divinity and humanity without undermining his authority as Son of God. To be the covenant between God and man does not require an infinite beginning. But infinity from a fixed point is still infinite, and does not take away from the divine nature of Jesus. After all, Death was shown to have no effect on Jesus by his Ressurection. He rose to Heaven on a cloud, therefore is still alive in body as well as spirit.

Not all heresies are well founded. It was once a heresy to preach the existence of man on a round world. It was a search for the truth that made the leadership in the Church change its declaration concerning the shape of the world. Likewise, I believe that discussion of this material is not a heresy if the truth is revealed through the discussion. I'm not opposed to Jesus having an infinite beginning, I just want to know the basis of this tradition.

Would it not make sense that God created Jesus as the bridge between himself and man, by giving Jesus a fixed beginning? What other beliefs are built upon an infinite beginning for Jesus that would also be affected?

 

[Elledan]

<< NOTE: This is a topic for the Christians that believe in the divinity of Jesus, not for people that want to mock his existence. >>

In that case...

The story of Jesus is very likely composed out of texts of various other (pagan) religions. This theory is supported by the fact that there are no unbiased sources from around the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived which relate about this Jesus.

Let's not get started about the possibility that this 'god' exists.

NOTE: I'm not mocking anyone or anything, I'm merely stating some facts.

 

[MadRat]

<<NOTE: I'm not mocking anyone or anything, I'm merely stating some facts.>>

Yeah, nice job speaking out your ass. Facts for you are not facts for others. In this case you are mocking Christianity.

 

[Swag1138]

<< The story of Jesus is very likely composed out of texts of various other (pagan) religions. This theory is supported by the fact that there are no unbiased sources from around the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived which relate about this Jesus.

Let's not get started about the possibility that this 'god' exists.

NOTE: I'm not mocking anyone or anything, I'm merely stating some facts. >>



Way to state an opinion then pass it off as fact at the end. Im sure you didnt intend to do that, it just comes naturaly to you.

But, a REAL answer to your question:
Jesus was, in heaven, the Archangel Michael. He was the first creation of God, and through him all else was created. So in that sense, Jesus DID have a beginning. I dont see how this would affect his divinity, or his position as the only begotten son of God.

 

[Elledan]

<< <<NOTE: I'm not mocking anyone or anything, I'm merely stating some facts.>>

Yeah, nice job speaking out your ass. Facts for you are not facts for others. In this case you are mocking Christianity. >>


I'm not mocking Christianity. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.

The Jesus as described in the bible most certainly didn't exist.

 

[MadRat]

<<Jesus was, in heaven, the Archangel Michael. He was the first creation of God, and through him all else was created.>>

I don't remember reading this in the Bible. Where did you get this information?

 

[Swag1138]

I dont remember exactly where or when it came in my head. It doesnt say flat out in the bible, but it says that Jesus is Gods only begotten son, and it mentions one Archangel, Michael, and Jesus being the first angel...you see? The logic kinda flows.

 

[rgwalt]

Elledan-

Making these comments without backing them up with credible sources (credible links or quotes from whatever sources you've read) is the same as stating an opinion. It isn't like I'm going to take some stranger's statements as fact at face value. I will say that I've heard a lot of evidence to the contrary. Roman texts talk about Jesus from a secular standpoint, and in fact, there is more evidence to support the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar. Now I can't pull up unbiased sources off the top of my head, but if you produce some unbiased evidence, so will I.


My response:
From a Christian perspective (non-Catholic), Jesus was/is God. God is a three part being: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three parts of God have always existed as the three parts. The Son came to earth and was born into flesh to become Jesus, however, this didn't change His divinity. It is funny how many people scoff at this idea because it doesn't "make any sense" to them. One has to learn to think outside the box when thinking about God.

Ryan

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan-

Making these comments without backing them up with credible sources (credible links or quotes from whatever sources you've read) is the same as stating an opinion. >>

Oh, but it's not just an opinion...


<< It isn't like I'm going to take some stranger's statements as fact at face value. >>

But you believe whatever the bible and the church tells you?


<< I will say that I've heard a lot of evidence to the contrary. Roman texts talk about Jesus from a secular standpoint, and in fact, there is more evidence to support the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar. Now I can't pull up unbiased sources off the top of my head, but if you produce some unbiased evidence, so will I. >>

Have fun reading the page I linked to. Don't forget to check out the references.

 

[Novgrod]

I don't mean to be a pr!ck, but:

I know quite a bit about "the historical Jesus," seeing as I've taken classes on Roman historiography and attended lectures on the very topic. What's more, these lectures weren't presented by ex-anythings, they were presented by legitimate scholars.

As such, there are some points I would like to offer for your consideration:

1) Roman historians sucked butt. Not one of them (with the exception of some of Josephus, and some argue a little Tacitus) was really at all accurate about anything. They cared about wars, and they cared about political tumult. Their training was rhetorical--that is, not historical. As such, facts took a (distant) back seat to argument. What would be their motivation for recording a splinter movement in Iudea?

2) Much, much, much history is entirely not covered by the major Roman historical trends. It's not like they had the Washington post, and even if they did, Jesus would be in section D page 5. There were would-be religious leaders everywhere.

Oh, funny note: in the list of historians this guy cites, many we only know about in tiny fragments, or more often through references from other authors.

SO: The New Testament is no more biased than Livy, perhaps even less. Furthermore, quibbling over something as minor as dates strikes me as wonderfully useless to deny the life of Jesus.

In short, the New Testament is NOT a historical document. It is a religious document, and it (some argue) contains religious truth, NOT historical truth.

The Jesus "myth" is certainly pretty original. It "originates" from the Old Testament, though, if it's a myth. NOT from hazy "other myths." If you're going to refute something, cite a source. Specifically.

To conclude, I don't know that I believe in the historical Jesus. That doesn't mean I'm going to run around and try to disprove Him, which is as nonsensical as trying to prove He existed. If you believe in Him, good for you. If you don't, shut yer pie hole until you have something more accurate to show us.

 

[rgwalt]

<< << It isn't like I'm going to take some stranger's statements as fact at face value. >>

But you believe whatever the bible and the church tells you? >>



Oh come on... you know there is a difference between taking what you state as fact at face value and what I've read and been taught. Don't be like that. Don't be that guy.

I do appreciate the link and I'll give it a read.

Ryan

 

[AreaCode707]

The reason Jesus is the bridge is because is both finite and infinite. He is infinitely spirit, always has been, is, and always will be. However, his mortal body was finite, so he died, and then rose again. That's how both are incorporated.

 

[Wallydraigle]

It never fails. The very first statement made by the original poster says that this thread is for Christians who whish to discuss their faith, and not for those who wish to discuss something else. And what do you suppose the very first reply is? An intolerant biggot who never misses an opportunity to insult or belittle the beliefs of another. Go away troll, this thread isn't for you.

 

[DougyDanger]

<< The story of Jesus is very likely composed out of texts of various other (pagan) religions. This theory is supported by the fact that there are no unbiased sources from around the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived which relate about this Jesus. >>



Hold those 'biased' sources up to the most detailed study and they prove to be very reliable historical works. The debate over other sources of Christ's existance is very heated. Its much like Creation. The debate is very heated and most people discount it. Yet there is an overwhelming ammount of evidence that fits the creation model perfectly, and gives evolutionists fits trying to fit into their model. So yes there is debate, yes experts disagree, but lets not jump on board the most popular opinion just because it seems to have the most weight. There was a time when the earth was flat...because the experts said so.



<< Jesus was, in heaven, the Archangel Michael. He was the first creation of God, and through him all else was created >>



Not True. This introduces the idea that Christ was not God (ie the Trinity). Christ siad himself that he and God the father are one (John 1:1, John 8:48). The Bible clearly teaches that Christ=God=Holy Spirit. One has not ever existed apart from the others and none were created by the others. 3 in one. The idea that Christ was the Archangel Micheal is arrived at through some mental leaps and bounds that are not supported by the word of God.



<< mentions one Archangel, Michael, and Jesus being the first angel...you see? The logic kinda flows. >>



Care to provide the reference that says Jesus was the first angel? I prefer my theology to be more sound than 'kinda logical'. The idea you are presenting sound very much like that of the JW's. True? If so it should be noted that their version of the Bible was translated to fit their theology (something that can be clearly demonstrated by comparing the text to the original Greek/Hebrew and vs itself on how it handles certain gramatical structures). Second, it has been revised serveral times, often with impact on theology. And lastly, the people who developed the JW docterine were found to be in error several times (particularly when predicting the end of the world...3 times I think).


To address the intial question. Yes Jesus MUST be infinite. Why? He claimed to be God. God claimed him to be God. They both stated they are infinite, therefore He must be infinite. Suggesting he is not is equal to saying, "Did God and Jesus lie to us?" "Before Abraham was born, I AM "(note the usage of the name God gave himself to Moses) John 8:58. And John 1:1 says, "I and the father are one."

So The bible says God and Jesus are one, Jesus claimed to be with God for all eternity. There is no room there to suggest Jesus had a finite begining.

 

[Elledan]

<< Yet there is an overwhelming ammount of evidence that fits the creation model perfectly, and gives evolutionists fits trying to fit into their model. >>

ROFL...

Evolution is a theory, which is as good as a law in science.
Genesis (creationism) isn't even a thesis. It's nothing.
Biogenesis is the most promising theory we have to explain the 'beginning' of life.

And BTW, does anyone of you know that the universe and all life in it was created by aliens from another universe? No? Well, you can't refute it, so it must be true, right?



<< 1) Roman historians sucked butt. Not one of them (with the exception of some of Josephus, and some argue a little Tacitus) was really at all accurate about anything. They cared about wars, and they cared about political tumult. Their training was rhetorical--that is, not historical. As such, facts took a (distant) back seat to argument. What would be their motivation for recording a splinter movement in Iudea?

2) Much, much, much history is entirely not covered by the major Roman historical trends. It's not like they had the Washington post, and even if they did, Jesus would be in section D page 5. There were would-be religious leaders everywhere. >>

Some of the miracles described in the bibles as being performed by Jesus must have been quite astounding.

Sorry, but a lack of evidence remains a lack of evidence.

 

[Elledan]

<< An intolerant biggot who never misses an opportunity to insult or belittle the beliefs of another. Go away troll, this thread isn't for you. >>


You refuse to listen to another opinion? Why? You're feeling too comfortable in your own little world?


<<

<< << It isn't like I'm going to take some stranger's statements as fact at face value. >>

But you believe whatever the bible and the church tells you? >>



Oh come on... you know there is a difference between taking what you state as fact at face value and what I've read and been taught. Don't be like that. Don't be that guy. >>

I don't see the difference. If you believe what the Christian ideology teaches you, then you should also believe that what other religious ideologies teach.

Religions are, except for some irrelevant details, based on superstition.



<< I do appreciate the link and I'll give it a read.

Ryan >>

Thanks

 

[MadRat]

Elledan, the shallow.

<<Evolution is a theory, which is as good as a law in science.
Genesis (creationism) isn't even a thesis. It's nothing.
Biogenesis is the most promising theory we have to explain the 'beginning' of life.>>

You speak out your ass, theory is not law. Lather, rinse, repeat again. You rant is ignorant of truth.

<<If you believe what the Christian ideology teaches you, then you should also believe that what other religious ideologies teach.>>

No, believing a single ideology is more than enough for someone. If you believe in more than one ideology than you believe in none of them. You must have missed the meaning behind the word "ideology".

You believe in the superstition of Evolution it appears, but reject religion. How ironic. Could it be you subcribe to the athiest ideology? Thats a rhetorical quesion. I really don't care to see your ignorance in this thread anymore.

 

[Wallydraigle]

<< << An intolerant biggot who never misses an opportunity to insult or belittle the beliefs of another. Go away troll, this thread isn't for you. >>


You refuse to listen to another opinion? Why? You're feeling too comfortable in your own little world? >>




What little world would that be? I'm pretty open to new ideas, I just don't like being condescended to by elitist biggots. You know quite well that your only intention in posting here was to make someone feel inferior to you for believing what they do. Why the need to proselytize? Feeling a little too insecure in your own beliefs? Why are you still here? Go crap in someone else's thread.

 

[JupiterJones]

I'm not opposed to Jesus having an infinite beginning, I just want to know the basis of this tradition.

This depends on your source of authority. The protestant tradition is the the Bible is THE source for truth. If you believe the Bible then Christ was not created.

Gospel of John, Chapter 1. Jesus existed in the beginning and is God. All things were made by Him. Without Him nothing was made that was made.

This chapter of John contradicts the idea of Jesus being a created being on three fronts.

1. He existed in the beginning
2. He is God
3. Every made thing was made BY him.

Don

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, the shallow.

<<Evolution is a theory, which is as good as a law in science.
Genesis (creationism) isn't even a thesis. It's nothing.
Biogenesis is the most promising theory we have to explain the 'beginning' of life.>>

You speak out your ass, theory is not law. Lather, rinse, repeat again. You rant is ignorant of truth. >>

ROFLMAO!!!

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. With science, a theory is the same as a law. That is, as long as no better theory is found, or any contradicting results/evidence is found, the theory is preferred above all other theories.



<< <<If you believe what the Christian ideology teaches you, then you should also believe that what other religious ideologies teach.>>

No, believing a single ideology is more than enough for someone. >>

Yes, of course. One can not believe in more than one ideology on the same topic.


<< If you believe in more than one ideology than you believe in none of them. >>

Wrong. It's impossible to actually believe in more than one ideology which are about the same subject.
However, it is very well possible to believe in a multitude of ideologies which each deal with another topic.


<< You must have missed the meaning behind the word "ideology". >>

Uh uh.



<< You believe in the superstition of Evolution it appears, but reject religion. >>

Evolution is an observable phenomenon of which the existance has been proven beyond any doubt.


<< How ironic. Could it be you subcribe to the athiest ideology? >>

Nope, I'm agnostic.


<< Thats a rhetorical quesion. I really don't care to see your ignorance in this thread anymore. >>

Says who?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< << An intolerant biggot who never misses an opportunity to insult or belittle the beliefs of another. Go away troll, this thread isn't for you. >>


You refuse to listen to another opinion? Why? You're feeling too comfortable in your own little world? >>




What little world would that be? I'm pretty open to new ideas, I just don't like being condescended to by elitist biggots. You know quite well that your only intention in posting here was to make someone feel inferior to you for believing what they do. Why the need to proselytize? Feeling a little too insecure in your own beliefs? Why are you still here? Go crap in someone else's thread. >>


You've not even the faintest clue what I'm talking about, have you?

You would make a very lousy scientist and Buddhist.

This 'little world' of yours is the ideology in which you believe, which keeps you trapped. Unable to see beyond this ideology, you're a victim of superstition.

 

Gosh! Will people ever learn not to waste their time with Elledan?

I guess you get what you ask for. If it suits you to have a meaningless discussion with one who is dogmatic and discourteous of an intellectual discourse, then so be it.

Edited to save my ever typo nature from immense criticism!

 

[MadRat]

<<"Before Abraham was born, I AM "(note the usage of the name God gave himself to Moses) John 8:58. And John 1:1 says, "I and the father are one.">>

In John 8:58 the meaning may not be necessarily that he declared himself God. The greek translation comes out that he declared himself basically in tune with God. The statement could be translated as being "I say to you, even before Abraham was concieved, I was (with God)." The Jews went to stone him because before that he had declared himself the Messiah, the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. The Jews asked him if he was greater than Abraham and if he personally knew Abraham, and that is when he said that famous quote.

John 1:1 is the foundation of God, in all of his glory. It can be stretched out of context to mean Jesus, but literally it does not say this. It literally declares God's inifinity on three levels of existense; all truth, infinite creativity, and the focus of reality. The original verse of John 1:2 goes on to define that "he", or man, was with God. Verse 3 goes on to declare that man came to be through God, with the breath of Life. It was this Life that is what makes man special before all the rest of his creation. Verse 4 declares that darkness has not overcome the Life of man. It is not until verse 14 that John witnesses to God's history of man's creation and the transformation of God's truth into flesh, namely Jesus. Verse 18 goes on to say that nobody has seen God, except for the ONLY son of God, whom has revealed God's truth.

I'm only taking the greek words at their literal meaning. Perhaps they do mean more, but even in their literal sense are of no less importance.

 

[Elledan]

<< I guess you get what you ask for. If you suits you to have a meaningless discussion with one who is dogmatic and discourteous of an intellectual discourse, then so be it. >>


Yup, I'm dogmatic and discourteous

BTW, is it wrong to help people?

 

[Moonbeam]

Would it be fair to ask, if Jesus is God and has no beginning and end, where his body is now, the one he showed up in? I'm curious because I think that when we speak of Jesus as God the actual reality is that we aren't talking about the person or his body. I seem to recall, too, something about being forsaken. Who was it that was separated and who was it he was separated from?