Depends on what perspective you look at it from ;).
From your link:
And that is what Jesus is in the Christian mindset - God as man, who is to end humanity’s exile and in His second coming, fully end evil (in many theories of atonement, Jesus’s death and resurrection has already won the victory over evil and suffering and it will be fully realized when He returns - no where does it say this occurs on a ‘first try’, FWIW). Jesus does, of course, quote Isaiah quite a bit.
In the end, Jews and Christians fundamentally disagree on the question of Messiah. Christians believe Jesus has fulfilled what the Scripture has said about the Messiah, but in a way that the Jews of His era did not fully comprehend.
Thanks for the welcome. As I understand Buddhists v. Hindus, Siddhārtha Gautama, The Buddha studied for many years with Hindu Brahmans’ in the search for enlightenment. Then struck out on his own to find enlightenment under the Bodi Tree. Therefore one could say that Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism - however Buddhism does not worship any Deities. All this notwithstanding, I do agree with Soren Kierkegaard when he said “If you label me, you negate me.”
Interesting scripture and the question is ‘did Jesus need to learn who He was here for?’ We have the story of ‘The Faith of a Canaanite Woman’, Matt 15 21-27, where Jesus made the statement:
But helped her, negating this. My take on this is Jesus, as a child (of God), had to learn He was not just their for the Jews. Jesus did not lie, as he believed His purpose, but His heart, which was one with the Father’s heart, was there for whoever He could reach, and had to help her due to who He is.
We have several other places where Jesus didn’t know things (the woman who was bleeding - Jesus Asked ‘who touched me’ (Luke 8:45), The end time (Not the son, only the Father knows) (MARK 13:32). And that Jesus had to suffer everything, there is no unique suffering (so if Jesus knew everything, we could brag that we suffered without knowledge, while Jesus suffered knowing what will happen), so Jesus needed to be without divine onmi-knowleage.
I believe that plays into your speculation, and shielding Jesus from such knowledge till it was time for Him to handle it. And I believe the deal is free will, God is bypassing Satan and going direct to the children of the earth, while not violating the free will of Satan.
Czarcasm, this I find part as the major disagreement, and the very sad missing of the message:
[QUOTE=from your link]
He was not the son of G-d any more than we all are; precisely no more or less. The very thought is repugnant to a Jewish person. G-d having a son in that manner? We shudder at the suggestion.
[/QUOTE]
If Jesus is a child of God, we all can be, if Jesus was not, no one can. Also the human reproduction system is totally beautiful, why would not God use it (yes it has been made much more painful due to Satan, but still totally beautiful). I do also sense a misogynistic tone in this part of your link.
Wouldn’t your statement here imply, since you believe Jesus is a child of God, that therefore we all can be, and that God would use the human reproductive system… that in fact if we are all children of God, it’s because God has fucked all of our mothers?
Gen 6:1, yes there are beloved intersteller starseeded children on earth, but to your point.
Man is also God, so has been given the ability to also come inside of woman and create new life (a god power - create life), so yes you have a father who had sex with your mother, that father is also a child of God.
So in short, yes life happens, and that is via sex, and also thanks be to God sex is also fun
No, he’s not. He’s the child of his father and mother, and so on backwards, under this system. Even if God gave this power to living things, it doesn’t mean the result of it is children of God. Even if you apply the same standard to Jesus, as you’ve obliged yourself to.
I’m not quite sure why you’re focusing on “man and woman”, given sexual reproduction isn’t unique to humans, nor is it the only means of creating life. Bacteria can make new life. And of course no, not all men and women do have that power. Plus, you know, if all sex can be credited to God, that includes rape, but I don’t think I want to get back into that with you again.
That all aside, and accepting that under your system that’s an aspect credited to God; so? Granting the ability to use a process doesn’t give ownership over any result of that process. I don’t think i’d consider almost any fabricated product avaliable today to be fabricated by the inventor of the production line, or the inventor of the robot, or the computer. Likewise I don’t see why we’re “God’s children”, even if he were the one who granted people the ability to do that. Especially considering that the starting point for this conversation was you suggesting that God literally used physical sex in order to begat a child, the idea otherwise bearing a hint of misogyny.
There is that, but Paul rejigged Christianity with an intent to broaden the market so goyische guys could think they had a chance with hot Jewish girls without elective surgery.
Suckers.
ETA: There might have been other reasons.
After posting yes I did have the though that hey animals do that too, so +1 for RT, and yes I agree that getting into the aspects of rape would be counterproductive, yet my views have changed since last time, but I still feel you would take similar issue to them.
Granting it is one thing, an inherent part of us because we are a inherent part of God was more what I was getting at. And unlike animals, and bacteria we have a much greater degree of control given to us in reproduction. For all intents and purposes we control if a new life comes from us, and that power ultimately is given to women (not men) as they have the final say (they are given to be God over their child in their womb. But to that last point I have heard of cases where God overridden the woman’s desire to abort, but that type of thing seems rare.
Why is this so? Is Sex evil? The only way I could come up with it as being misgyny is if you start with the premise of diminishing the role of the women and the female reproductive system. (and by default if you come with that premise then yes everything will be misgyn including your daily cup of coffee).
In the case of the biblical story of Jesus, God chose to have a child with a person, that person is female, and Joesph gets saddled with child support, seems pretty in favor of women and expresses their divine role, they carry life itself.
Also if you look at the other instance Gen 6.1, The ‘earth women’ have hybrid children who are born on earth. We really don’t hear that men had sex with ‘Daughters of God’, but it does make some sense that those hybrid children would not be born on earth, but in the heavens (as in Rev 12:2) and thus would not play a major role in humanity. So the role of women is not diminished by God, but is in the bible which is based on a patriarchal faith.
That’s my understanding and take as well. But Hinduism is a wide umbrella and apparently there are a few old atheistic strands. For completeness I’ll note (as you are aware) that Buddhism doesn’t exactly deny the existence of gods: the doctrine just says that they won’t help you achieve enlightenment.
One problem with the OP, is that there is a group sponsored by Baptists that claims that believing in Jesus is Jewish. I see that as a dubious argument, one different than merely claiming that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. I’ll also note that the early relationship between Jews and Christians formed the basis of much of medieval antisemitism: that Jews couldn’t or wouldn’t accept the divinity of Christ pissed the church off.
Amazing how far people will go to twist the Bible into their own preconceptions. Here, you are taking one throwaway verse that is clearly legendary, inventing an addition to it, and saying that your totally unfounded speculation outweighs the entire Mosaic Law, dictated by God, which makes it explicit that women are inferior to men.
