Now that you’ve explained why, would you still love him if you received irrefutable proof that the New Testament authors misrepresented his divinity ? That Jesus isn’t God ? Assume He’s still watching you from heaven like all the saints.
Is your love for him conditional ?
Because he died for my sins. ;)
On the point of conditional love, “conditional” in its usual sense does not mean “conditional on the existence of”. It is impossible to love a non-existent entity, so in that sense existence is a necressary property of the item for it to be loved. Saying that love is conditional on this property is somewhat of a tautology. Normally people use conditional to mean conditional on incidental or non-necessary properties of something. So for instance my love of someone depending on them loving me back is conditional in the sense that it is possible for someone to not love me back.
If the bible writers were wrong about the divinity of Jesus, then the Jesus that I love would simply not exist. Therefore I could not love them because that Jesus would not exist. The new being that you wish to substitute for the Jesus that I love (the non-divine one) is not Jesus to me in any meaningful way, and therefore of course my relationship with that entity would be different.
Calculon.
Because He first loved me. Because He conquered sin and death. Because He is worthy. Because He sent His Spirit to dwell in me, a constant guide and comforter and source of strength.
As Calculon stated, from my perspective, your question is nonsensical. The Jesus who I love and serve is the incarnation of the living God. The Jesus you stipulate is a fantasy. Like asking me “If it turned out your child is just a picture and had never really lived, would you still love the picture.”
Jesus never really considered himself any more divine than any other human being. When accused of Blasphmey he quoted the Psalmist (82 in KJV) who is quoted as saying,“I say you are gods and son’s of the most high” He said Many times" My father and yours" Taught his followers to say,“Our Father”. I know it is a belief of many but there are other ways to translate what Jesus taught. He also quoted as saying he would return in his father’s glory with his angels while some of those standing there listening to him would not yet have seen death…that never happened! This is in Matthew 16/27-28 and in John 10 -34. The punishment for sin according to Genesis was death,no mention of a soul. So his dying doesn’t seem to have achieved it’s purpose. 400+ BC There was a Messiah named Simon who also believed he should also die for the people.
There have been many claims of men saying they were the Messiah. If belief gives one peace that is good for them, and if they don’t harm others with their belief I think what ever helps to get through life is a good thing.
If Jesus really loves us why instead of “dying for our sins” didn’t he just say:
“You know what, I think we’re done with this whole ‘everybody is born a sinner’ stuff. Now that I’m down on earth it’s kinda tough to look at a new born baby and see something in him that justifies him being eternally damned if we don’t dunk him in water the right way, at the right time, in the right church”.
Oh come on you guys, don’t be stupid.
What he’s asking is if, somehow, it was determined that the trinity was really a binary or some such. Would you still love and venerate Christ as before, or would he occupy a somewhat subordinate position- like between Peter & God?
This isn’t a test of faith, it’s a hypothetical question. It’s meant to make you think outside the box, not explain why his question is bad based on your faith.
It’s this kind of smug crap that you pulled that makes people irritated with a lot of Christians.
As for me, I believe God is God… if somehow it was conclusively determined that Jesus wasn’t divine, then that wouldn’t change God, it would just indicate that we had it a little wrong all along and that we need to revise what we believe.
A little wrong? Really?
I don’t mean to be smug, it is just that the question is not well thought out.
Say you have a child. How would you answer the question “would you still love your child in the same way if you found out your child was really a potato?” Of course you wouldn’t because a potato can’t be your child and is an entirely different thing.
In the same way a non-divine Jesus is simply not the same thing as the divine Jesus that I love. Therefore my relationship with the non-divine Jesus would also be necessarily different that with my current relationship with the divine Jesus. For a start if Jesus is not actually divine, then worshiping Him as God is blasphemy against the actual divine. Secondly, if the non-divine Jesus cares at all for truth, worshipping Him as divine is simply a lie and not honouring to the type of being that he actually is. So if Jesus is not really who I think He is then my way of relating to Him is probably offensive to both the actual God and to Jesus himself.
Calculon.
Since no one’ knows’ any thing about God or Jesus, only what some human has said or says, one can believe what ever they choose. Belief is just that not Blasphemy. One just believes what another human has taught, thought, wrote, or said, so the belief is only in other humans. Belief is a personal thing and what is good for one is not helpful to another.
People who worship other gods are not blaspheming them, so I doubt that if a person believes Jesus was different, were he alive today he would state, as I believe He was quoted once, that only the father was holy. The word God had a different meaning then, and in the centuries past, than it does now!
Think about the father who has raised a son believing that the son was his biologically only to find out through DNA that his son was fathered by someone else. What whould you think of that father if he says he can no longer love his son because he no longer exists.
First of all, I think it is in principle possible to “know” something about God, because God is able to reveal himself to people and to have people understand him. To suggest otherwise is in a sense self defeating, because you then are placing yourself in a position of making definite statements about God. If no-one “knows” anything about God, then it must be impossible for God to effectively reveal himself, but that then is some knowledge of God. So the whole statement is itself contradictory.
Secondly though my comment does not rely on people knowing anything of God, it relies on God being objectively real. If God is really there, and has some properties and not others, then there is a right way to worship Him and a wrong way to worship Him. Right worship would be worshipping God as he objectively is. I don’t think it is logically possible for God to have no objectively real properties, only subjective ones. To say that would mean that God would both have and not have a property. For instance in that view God would embody both love and hate, justice and injustice, ect. The only way for that to be real is if God is completely illogical, which to me seems unlikely. I don’t think you will win many people to your position by stating that it is fundamentally illogical.
Calculon.
I just don’t think this is a good analogy to the question that was originally posted. Whether the child that the man raised is biologically his or not, the child in question is still human, and still has the same nature in either case. His genetic parentage is not really a fundamental part of the nature of the child. In contrast I think that the divinity of Jesus is a fundamental part of his nature. To ask whether you would still love Jesus in the same way if He was not divine is to completely change the nature of Jesus so as to make Him into something completely different. I still think my child/potato question is still closest to the one that you originally asked.
So, what would you think of someone who refused to love the potato as their own child? ;)
Calculon.
I would think that someone needs serious help for ever thinking that potato was once his child.
Its my understanding that long before the disciples of Christ were convinced of his divinity through the news of the resurection that they loved Jesus enough to hang out with him.
Seriously, as a former Christian myself, I’ve never understood this “love” for Jesus and God. It always sounded like ass kissing the boss to me. Tell me that Jesus loves me. Fine. Tell me you love Jesus or God and I’m questioning sincerity. I can understand appreciation for Jesus, and I can understand respect in all the way you might ascribe to a benevolent superior but this “I love Jesus” has always sounded phony to me.
I’m a bit disturbed by that. Thanks a lot!
To you, a parent, your parallel hypothetical question indeed would be nonsensical.
To someone who had no children and was delusional enought to be adamant that there was such a child, it would still seem nonsensical. But objectively it would not be.
Can you at least see the point here?
- Jack
S’what I’m here for.
Anywhoo, as someone who was raised from birth as a fundamental, evangelical Christian (now agnostic), the idea that the love of Jesus is, and should be, reciprocal is so ingrained in the tenants of the faith, that to not declare your love for Christ would be tantamount to rejecting his divinity; for the whole idea of salvation is based on this principle. His sacrifice, grace and blood is what purportedly saves humanity’s collective asses from eternal damnation in Hell. The belief in the divinity of Jesus and his miracles, and His teachings are all founded on Love.
Now, as a Christian, your logic might go something like this:
I believe the Bible is God’s Word.
God is infallible, but man is not.
If God is to give man instruction and salvation, whatever the Bible holds to this day, despite any error introduced by man’s interpretation, was God’s intention.
Therefore, the Bible as we know it, while still open to interpretation, is what God ultimately meant for Christians to take to heart.
The Disciples account of Jesus and his principles, are then the tenants of the faith.
This leaves the Bible as the only objective instruction on what God and Jesus are trying to tell us.
The root of the teachings is love, love and more love.
The boldings get to the point, since this is already getting TL;DR…
*I Corinthians, 13
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."*
*Matthew 25, Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and Goats
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’" <snip>*
So, I close my argument on the grounds that to be a Christian, is to believe in the divinity of Christ, by definition. To not follow His instruction, is to not walk in righteousness and strive to be Christ-like. Hence, you are not a Christian.
If irrefutable evidence, like a time-traveling camcorder, followed Jesus’ every move since birth to crucifixion to burial, revealed his divinity was a sham, then it would render the Bible moot, and therefore, all tenants of the faith would be dashed.
Still, even now that I consider myself agnostic, there’s some wisdom in His principles (even if he aped them from others before him). If proven to be just another dude, either delusional, or intentionally lying, I could not love him any more than I love Gandhi or the Buddha, because the way the faith is outlined would undermine his claimed sacrifice of taking on all of Men’s sins for us.
So, in otherwords, it’s one’s faith in His divinity that naturally brings you to love Him as you come to a revelation of the sacrifice He made for you.
I’ve met Him, I know Him and I Love Him. That’s all there is to it that’s all there will ever be to it.
I don’t care about the books, as everything comes from God, it’s all His. It doesn’t matter what proof comes up as everything is His, even the proof is from Him.
Jesus is Love is God. Where there is Love there He is. God is One.
It is not necessarily God reveling himself to one, it is the belief that it is God, just as the Muslims believe the Koran was dictated to Muhammad by an angel. It is belief, not knowledge. One can believe it is knowledge but knowledge can be proven, belief cannot in regards to God.
I do not think a supreme being who is all good and loving would want worship, or love, he would need nothing as he would have all that is necessary for Him. It would be the flaw of egotism to expect worship and not give a human positive knowledge of his existence. One has learned of a being called God through some other person and has passed on it’s beliefs. So it is a matter of what one( or who) one chooses to believe. It would prove that God is not the good father that the Abrahamic religions teach, as he does not revel Himself to all people and the believers are not all on the same page. If it were true all believers would be special children, not just a few, nor do I believe he would choose just one person ( who By the way was not a very good person or persons) to have spread His message or give directions.
Of course One is free to it’s own beliefs and as I stated if it doesn’t harm others and helps one live a better lif then so be it!
I personally don’t care if anyone believes the same as I do, that may not help them in their way of living.
Matthew 16 /27-28 contradicts Matthew 25, as Jesus is quoted as saying he would come in his father’s glory with his angels while some of them standing there would still be alive. That was 2000 years ago, and he didn’t show. so if there are some 2000 year old people walking the earth then Maybe? His return from the dead(if true) was not in his father’s glory, nor were there any angels, and the people close to him didn’t recognize him!
