Is it not what the Bible says? That is one of the miracles what gives the ground for Christianity as a religion. — Corvus

The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God.

The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God. — MoK

Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection.

Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection. — Corvus

I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this.

I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this. — MoK

But do you see the verse in the Bible that Jesus didn't become God after the resurrection and ascended to Heaven?

Ok, let's suppose he was not a God. How do you explain the resurrection and ascending to Heaven? Can ordinary blokes do that?

To resurrect from death, would you not need some assistance from the real God, and become some kind semi God or another God? To ascend to Heaven without being God, would you not need some sort of rocket device such as the SpaceX?

But it seems highly unlikely they had rocket device available to ascend to Heaven at the time. There must have been some sort of divine intervention, if it really happened. Would you not agree?

He either resurrected Himself or God did it. How could He resurrect Himself if He is dead? Therefore, it must be God who resurrected Jesus.

He either resurrected Himself or God did it. How could He resurrect Himself if He is dead? Therefore, it must be God who resurrected Jesus. — MoK

Sounds reasonable. If God can resurrect a dead man, he could also make him a junior God. Make sense?

God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion. That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent. Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this). Becoming Omnipotent requires Omniscience and Omnipresence. Therefore we can become God if we can become Omnipresent.

God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion. — MoK

Interesting claim indeed. How could we become omnipresent? And you believe God can make us Omniscient? What are your reasoning for the possibility? How could it be done?

Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this). — MoK

Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that.

That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent. — MoK

Well if the omnipresent beings are not the space and time entities, then they won't need separate space and time, would they? Therefore it would depend on the fact whether the omnipresent beings are spacetime entities or not. If not, what would be the nature of their existence?

And you believe God can make us Omniscient? — Corvus

Well, God can teach us the truth so we can become Omniscient if knowledge is bound.

Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that. — Corvus

I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances.

"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Isn't this the whole trinity problem, as in how can one thing be three things at the same time? If you have truly seperate things, you have polytheism, which I think Christianity wants to deny, except for the Mormons, who just go ahead and accept the polytheism.

It is entirely possible that the theology just doesn't make sense at a basic level, which is a problem if you place a high value on making sense. I don't say that sarcastically because it is the case that (1) many people do get great fulfillment through Christianity, and (2) Christianity doesn't make sense at a basic logical level and it is also based upon a false factual narrative. This isn't me picking on Christianity. I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions.

Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice.

My point is simply that the passage you have located that gives you trouble is doubtfully going to be the only one, and the obvious conclusion you will be forced to reach is that the hodgepodge of beliefs that have been handed down since antiquity will not be consistent, will be obviously false, and some will not make any logical sense based upon an analysis. The question is what do you do now that you've realized the obvious?

I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions. — Hanover

God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God.

Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice. — Hanover

We are commanded to choose life, and if empiricism and rationalism aren't directing towards those ends we must look elsewhere.

God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. I also don't know why a religion couldn't hold that humans have the ability to understand God. I'm not saying your views aren't valid, but I don't think your description of religion is necessary. If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position?

That is, I fully accept that there are those who reject religion outright and would not find any greater happiness turning their brains off to scientific reasons just due to the fact that they're not wired that way. It's for that reason that I find proselytizing offensive, as it fails to take seriously someone else's justified rejection of that viewpoint.

I'd also admit as well that my objections to proselytizing are rooted in my religion, which forbids it and openly discourages conversion to it. This admission is just to state the obvious, which is that social norms are learned and gathered from the community at large, which none of us have ever avoided, regardless of how free thinking you might be. Everyone has drunk the Kool-aid. I advocate for choosing the flavor that you like best.

I think he screams before he asks this in Mark. In Mark, Jesus is the most fiery, flipping money-changing tables over, calling out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Jesus is clearly being tortured to death in Mark, and because we understand him to have been a teacher of love, it's heartbreaking, after all these centuries, if you read it, it's hard not to feel the pain. It's saying that even if you've felt this way yourself, it's not in vain, and you shall overcome.

It's obviously in direct conflict with the gospel of John in which Jesus is calm and prescient all the time. John was written later and reflects the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. That's all Neoplatonic, Stoic stuff. The original Jesus was obviously just a prophet associated with the Essenes.

I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. — Hanover

My point is that one might say that they know goodness or that they know justice, which, since they know, means that they can tell when things meet or don't mean those qualities. We can judge others e.g. when they're bad. But to judge God is a different matter. So the biblical worldview requires humility. An understanding that we don't have the 30,000 foot view.

If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position? — Hanover

God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. If he were to speak to one of us directly that's another matter. Perhaps he does reveal things through dreams. There is the bible and the covenant and then there is our personal experiences with the "divine." I don't see a conflict unless one's personal visions or experiences are telling one that the covenant is null and void.

Isn't this the whole trinity problem, as in how can one thing be three things at the same time? — Hanover

The fact that Jesus was abandoned is against Trinity doctrine. There is a problem with this doctorine as you mentioned.

If you have truly seperate things, you have polytheism, which I think Christianity wants to deny, except for the Mormons, who just go ahead and accept the polytheism. — Hanover

Mormons believe that they become God after they resurrect if they fulfill the conditions. Jesus however believed to be God while He was human.

It is entirely possible that the theology just doesn't make sense at a basic level, which is a problem if you place a high value on making sense. I don't say that sarcastically because it is the case that (1) many people do get great fulfillment through Christianity, and (2) Christianity doesn't make sense at a basic logical level and it is also based upon a false factual narrative. This isn't me picking on Christianity. I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions. — Hanover

Correct.

The question is what do you do now that you've realized the obvious? — Hanover

I spread what I think is correct.

Well, God can teach us the truth so we can become Omniscient if knowledge is bound. — MoK

You claimed you are an atheist. If God doesn't exist, how could he teach you to become omniscient?

I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances. — MoK

What would the different substances be in their nature?

You claimed you are an atheist. — Corvus

Never did I claim such a thing.

What would the different substance be in their nature? — Corvus

Different substances are different in their essences.

Never did I claim such a thing. — MoK

I thought you did. Maybe it was someone else. My sincere apologies for mistaking your religious stance. So are you a Christian?

Different substances are different in their essences. — MoK

Of course, they would be different in some ways. What would be the difference be? Or different essences, if you prefer?

I thought you did. Maybe it was someone else. My sincere apologies for mistaking your religious stance. — Corvus

No problem mate! :)

So are you a Christian? — Corvus

I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. I have to face these to be certain.

Or different essences, if you prefer? — Corvus

Yes.

But to judge God is a different matter. — BitconnectCarlos

Job 9:19 to 9:24.

19 If it is a matter of strength, [God] is mighty!
And if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?
20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me;
if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.
21 “Although I am blameless,
I have no concern for myself;
I despise my own life.
22 It is all the same; that is why I say,
‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’
23 When a scourgel brings sudden death,
he mocks the despair of the innocent.
24 When a land falls into the hands of the wicked,
he blindfolds its judges.
If it is not he, then who is it?"

Psalm of David, 22:1:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?

God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. — BitconnectCarlos

You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks.

So the biblical worldview requires humility. — BitconnectCarlos

You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation.

My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.

It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that.

No problem mate! :) — MoK

:pray: :smile:

I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. I have to face these to be certain. — MoK

You made clear that you are not an atheist. So, the choice for you seems to be between being an agnostic and theist.

Or different essences, if you prefer? — Corvus

Yes. — MoK

What are the two essences in nature and character, and how are they different?

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish? — Hanover

It's normal to question and wrestle with God. Misfortune does befall the righteous. Who are we to say that God is wrong though? Or that we know "the good" better than Him. That's the point Job is making. Our epistemic perspective is too limited to judge with such finality.

Job cries out to God in anguish. He curses the day he was born. Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably.

You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks. — Hanover

Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.

You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation. — Hanover

I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.

My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.

It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that. — Hanover

The Bible is multi-vocal (I'm partial to the documentary hypothesis). I'm more comfortable analyzing e.g. common themes across a single book. Yet I do believe there are patterns that emerge more generally, e.g. the cycle of Israel straying, getting punished, and then repenting.

I'm fine if people want to view the bible in different ways. I love analyzing the historicity of it. I'm happy to enter into discussions on that topic. I also love the bible as a work of literature and as a self-help book. It also has love poetry. And theodicy. There are still better and worse interpretations despite the fact that it can be viewed through various lenses. Judge the commentary through the lens it seeks to approach the bible through.

I think it's a strength that people view it in different ways. Bible studies has become much more multidisciplinary over the past few decades and professionals from many different fields contribute to our knowledge of the bible.

So are you a Christian? — Corvus

I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. — MoK

If you believed in Science, then life after death looks unlikely. But from the religious point of view, and some QM ideas, life after death seems a possibility. How and to what would be subject to depending on which religion and QM theories we are talking about of course.

You made clear that you are not an atheist. So, the choice for you seems to be between being an agnostic and theist. — Corvus

I think agnostic is the correct term for me.

What are the two essences in nature and character, and how are they different? — Corvus

An essence to me describes what makes a thing what it is. Essence is about whatness.

An essence to me describes what makes a thing what it is. Essence is about whatness. — MoK

What are the essences of the God who made Jesus into another God? And what are the essences of the God Jesus?

What are the essences of the God who made Jesus into another God? And what are the essences of the God Jesus? — Corvus

God and Jesus accepting that Jesus is God have different substances. Their substances differ because their essences are different.

God and Jesus accepting that Jesus is God have different substances. Their substances differ because their essences are different. — MoK

How are the substances different?

How are the substances different? — Corvus

We say that two substances are intrinsically different when they have different essences.

The original Jesus was obviously just a prophet associated with the Essenes. — frank

So you think that people make up the gospel of John, which is not what Jesus said.

We say that two substances are intrinsically different when they have different essences. — MoK

Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences?