# Give us your defense of the theory that Jesus is God. Atheists welcome. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046 "2003-11-02T22:54:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/61 "2003-11-04T21:41:13Z")
> [@](#): > > posted by Mangetout > > Now if you’re asking what would be the best evidence for the divinity of Jesus to a non-Christian, I think it would be fair to say that there is no such evidence - why should there be? I’m not asking for “evidence”. I ask to defend the case. > [@](#): > > Christianity (for the most part) holds that Jesus is ‘God made flesh’ - that the fully divine person of Jesus pre-existed his humanity, but chose to be made humble and be born into a human form - that the spiritual entity of God eternally exisitng as the person of Jesus fully inhabited a human body for a time. And died? > [@](#): > > posted by Estilicon > > Defense? it’s called faith. Do you believe that Allah is the only god and Mahoma is it’s prophet? Prove it… you can’t or at least it is impossible without entering in the realm of beliefs, a realm in which a rational discussion can never take place because we are lacking those lovely little things called FACTS. 1. I’m not discussing Islam 2. I don’t ask to prove the existence of God. I ask to defend the concept that a human was God. These are two very different issues in my opinion. > [@](#): > > posted by ResIpsaLoquitor > > In short: Christ always existed as God, and so wasn’t “created” but merely entered the physical world in the Incarnation. This whole theory claims the existence of at the very least a divided God. Do you claim Christians believe in a divided God? That goes directly against the dogma of the monotheism. > [@](#): > > posted by John Mace > I’ll ask again: Can you accept that God (Allah) can do things which humans cannot understand? A simple question, answerable either “yes” or “no”. The answer is yes. Humans have no understanding of God at all. Yet humans received the Messages of God. The monotheistic religions are based on the definitions I mention in my OP. That excludes any “created” God in whatever form. Jesus was a creation. God is not. > [@](#): > > posted by bizzwire > In addition to the logical warning signs noted by other in the OP, I have to question your intent, given the fact that you, as a self-proclaimed scholar in comparative religious studies, should already know the answer to the question you posed: > > ## quote: > > And by the way: where do you see a sentence where I write I’m an expert on Christianity, even when it is Catholicism. > > ## Study of Christianity (comparitive Islam/Christianity) and study of Christian history (for Islamic History and European History both) is what I did. > > (bolding mine to alleviate possible confusion caused by the fact the the quote in question apparently states that he both is, and is not knowledgable on the subject) Having done comparative studies Islam/Christianity doesn’t make you an “expert” on “Christianity” as such. Do you think doing comparative studies is all one needs to do to become an expert on no matter what? Thank you so much. > [@](#): > > posted by Not In Anger > If you cannot believe whole-heartedly in the impossibility of god, then you cannot logically believe in anything. As far as Jesus is concerned, that’s just another superstition promulgated by people in big cults or people afraid of their own mortality, for some inexplicable reason. To me the concept of God is of course not impossible. The concept of a God/human is. Maybe you could explain further your reasoning why one can’t logically believe in anything if you do believe in the existence of God. But I don’t think Christians feel they need to worship Jesus as God to feel immortal. > [@](#): > > ## posted by x-ray vision Aldebaran, the two reasons you give for reasons that you will never change your mind that Jesus is God make no sense. > > quote > > 1. God is God = the uncreated, transcendent, eternal Creator of all > > * * * > > So, that doesn’t explain why Jesus can’t be God. Care to clarify? 1.Jesus didn’t create, he was created. 2. Since Jesus was human, he wasn’t eternal. He died. 3. Jesus was hardly transcendent. > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## quote 2. No human is/can be God or God wouldn’t be God.(see above) > > OK, you’re saying no human could be God, But can’t God > decide to be human? If you say no, you’re also saying the god you believe in isn’t omnipotent. It is because God is omnipotent that a human can’t possibly be God. Can you explain us in detail how God can be limited to what is a human and still remain God ? > [@](#): > > Posted by Svt4Him > If God was to pay the price for man’s sin, and remain just (can’t just forget about it), how would you propose He do it? One of the questions I ask Christians whenever we discuss this issue is : Why should God have to pay any price for the sins of His creation? Any at all? > [@](#): > > And if God were not as smart as you, and chose to become a human, in order to die for humans, how would you think He’d be born? And the second question is : Why should God have any urge to die for humans? They die when God chooses. God doesn’t die when humans choose it. Jesus did die when humans decided for him that he should die. God can’t be born and can’t die since God is uncreated and eternal = God always was and shall always be. > [@](#): > > posted by El\_Kabong > Maybe what Alde is really saying is that he doesn’t get the concept of the Trinity, in which case he would not be alone. I “get” the theory behind the concept of the Trinity with no problem. The Christian problem is that Christology wouldn’t exist if the Christians themselves would really “get” what they believe. > [@](#): > > posted by MEBuckner > ….“On the one hand, if Jesus was omniscient, it seems hard to justify saying that God “became a man”. To a human being, with limited knowledge, events take place in sequence, we exist in a changing universe, and we experience the flow of time. To an omniscient God, with perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future, all things would appear to have already happened, and the universe would be a static whole, with all parts of it already grasped, viewed from an eternal perspective outside time. Omniscience is such a radical departure from the human condition, and the mind of a being with perfect knowledge must be so different from the mind of a being like ourselves, that while God might create a man-shaped apparition which humans could talk to and which could appear to eat and sleep and so on, God could not really become a man. > > On the other hand, it may be that Jesus was not omniscient when he was a human being. (See Mark 13:32.) Perhaps God voluntary gave up some of his divine attributes when he was incarnated as a man. However, while it’s possible to imagine Zeus voluntarily giving up his ability to hurl thunderbolts for a time, and yet still remaining as Zeus, omniscience is so central to the kind of being the Christian God is that I don’t see how God could give up such things and remain himself. A human might voluntarily surrender the power of sight or the ability to move for some period of time, and yet remain himself; but it would be meaningless for a human to “incarnate” himself as a statue. He might create a statue, he might act like a statue for some period of time (by simply holding still), but he couldn’t become a statue without ceasing to be a person. Of course Arians (and Jehovah’s Witnesses) have said that Jesus was not really the omniscient God, but was simply the highest of God’s creations–the “Son of God” in a different sense–but this view is and has been rejected by the great majority of Christians. It might be imagined that the omnscient God would have perfect knowledge of what it was like to be Jesus Christ incarnated as a human being, but an omniscient God should already have perfect knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of all human beings. > > The response that God is omnipotent and can therefore do anything he wants, and can therefore meaningfully become a human being while retaining omniscience, or meaningfully surrender omniscience while remaining the Christian God, opens the door to all sorts of arguments of the “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” sort…… “ > “…… There is of course the response that this is simply a “Mystery”, but that response obviously solves nothing. > > In my opinion, the problems of the Incarnation are worse than the problems of the Trinity, and it’s no wonder so many Christian heresies have arisen from people trying to reconcile what it means for an omniscient God to become a human being.” Exactly. You make a few of my objections to this “Jesus=God” idea very clear. Thank you. > [@](#): > > Posted by blowero > > I’m afraid anything I say will merely be a subset of Buckner’s excellent post, but is it official doctrine that God actually became Jesus? From the accounts in the Gospels, it would seem to me that God did not leave heaven, but rather occupied both heaven and Earth simultaneously. When Jesus addresses God: “Why have you forsaken me?”, he isn’t talking to himself, is he? If that is a true record of what Jesus said (historian coming in with all his precaution and doubts about everything ever written) then he was talking to God. Which makes it clear that at that moment (and earlier, just before he was arrested and during his life whenever he addressed himself to God) he wasn’t God, but simply a human. > [@](#): > > posted by Bippy the Beardless > > You seem to be very quick to put a limit on God’s powers. Why if God is all powerful cannot he chose to be Human? > > You do God a disservice if you think he is so0 limited in power. It is not a question of “power” and “limits”. It is a question of where God was while He limited God by becoming a human. See also the very clear posts of MEBuckner. > [@](#): > > ## posted by Mangetout > > ## Originally posted by blowero I’m afraid anything I say will merely be a subset of Buckner’s excellent post, but is it official doctrine that God actually became Jesus? From the accounts in the Gospels, it would seem to me that God did not leave heaven, but rather occupied both heaven and Earth simultaneously. When Jesus addresses God: “Why have you forsaken me?”, he isn’t talking to himself, is he? > > No; this is (according to Christian Doctrine) God the Son talking to God the Father - two different people, each of whom are fully God (but not two Gods) - back to the mystery of the Trinity again. If Jesus was fully God, Jesus didn’t need to start talking to God -which you describe here as “different people” - since Jesus was God. > [@](#): > > posted Bippy the Beardless > There you go limiting God’s capabilities again by stating “God is One” do you think he can’t appear in two places at the same time just because us humans can’t? In fact omnipresent means he is all places at all times. You might say well God may be in two places at the same time, but God is One because it is the same God. Well that is what the Xians are telling you when they say God is Jesus as well as God the Father (aka Allah). The doctrine “God is One; there is only One God” is what monotheism is all about. And no, the One God Muslims refer to as “Allah”(which is only the Arabic word used for saying “God”) is not “God the Father”. It is God The One and Only God. > [@](#): > > posted Mangetout > > Well, perhaps, but let’s be clear now; you’re not debating anymore but witnessing. > > ‘God is One’ is a key tenet of Islam; Islam doesn’t recognise the Christian Trinity - surprise surprise! Wrong. God is One is the “key tenet” of monotheism. > [@](#): > > What exactly are you trying to do here Aldebaran? Prove that Islam and Christianity are not completely compatible? Something else? I see that it escapes you, but other posters and myself are debating the possibility of God becoming human. > [@](#): > > posted by sqweels > > But whoever wrote Genesis didn’t know that the stars are suns and that there are untold billions of them, many having worlds circling them. How can God not be concerened with what goes on in these places? There is in my opinion not said that “earth” should be the only planet with life forms capable of worshipping the Creator. > [@](#): > > This discussion is pointless. Of course the divinity of Jesus can not be proved or unproved. > I ask Aldebaran: Give me your defense to the theory that Mohamed was the last of the great prophets. > BTW even the existance of Jesus can’t be proved! Aside from the scriptures there are no mentions of Jesus or of the portents supposed to happen during his life. I’m not discussing anything related to Muhammed or Islam here. If you want to discuss that, make a thread about it please. I shall try to answer your questions and remarks. Thank you. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/62 "2003-11-04T21:47:36Z")
Mangetout , I see… You start living on this website the minute you make a thread, watching it day and night without any sleep or without doing anything else then watching your PC screen and this particular website. If that is no problem for you, who cares? Butl I have a life in real life and real time. Please forgive me that I don’t care that you seem to mind me having such a different life then you say you have. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/63 "2003-11-04T21:49:01Z")
Mangetout , I see… You start living on this website the minute you make a thread, watching it day and night without any sleep or without doing anything else then watching a PC screen focussed at this particular website. If that is no problem for you, who cares? Butl I have a life in real life and real time. Please forgive me that I don’t care that you seem to mind me leading such a different life then you seem to lead. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/64 "2003-11-04T21:52:26Z")
See? I even post twice because the website can’t follow my speed in ansering you… A bit more coffee and you wont even be able to keep up with reading ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/65 "2003-11-04T22:01:52Z")
You still are lost in your conception that God cannot be two places at the same time. God could if he wanted be completely and utterly human could even be you if that was his wish, at the same time he could be someone else or a million something elses, and also be his unlimited self. God is not confined by time or causality. All the same one God can appear to be many places in many different ways whilst remaining One. The body which was Christ’s was made and destroyed, but the spirit or soul that is Christ is eternal and is the same spirit or soul that is God, or so the Christians tend to believe. When God was in the birning bush, did he not also exist everywhere else as is his want? When the Bush finaly burnt down did God die? When God walked and talked with Adam and Eve was he nowhere else at the same time? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/66 "2003-11-04T22:10:33Z")
Y’know, **Aldebaran** , I’m not sure what exactly your question is. Here’s a thought, though: In Christianity, ALL people are recognized as having ‘eternal’ souls. As yet, these souls have evaded the detection of science, but it is taken as axiomatic that these souls drive our bodies, and yet have existense external to them in a way that will, eventually, allow for burning eternally in hell, among other possibilities. It being the case that it is taken as axiomatic that EVERY person is driven by some being with an unlimited warranty, why are you surprised that God has driven a person at some point in history? Christianity presents _all_ human bodies as something like apparel, worn by spiritual entities. As this ‘connection’ is as yet _entirely_ outside the realm of study, there is no reason to think that God could not have donned a human body as a temporary fixture, without making himself something other than God. If you’re going to accept that people live on after they die, in _any_ form, then there is no reason to believe that God (or some part of God) couldn’t have animated a human body for a time. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/67 "2003-11-04T22:45:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bippy the Beardless \* > \*\*You still are lost in your conception that God cannot be two places at the same time. That is not the question at all. The question rather is: can God be limited to be in one place and be limited to be a human. I think you should re-read the posts made by EBuckner to see what I mean. > [@](#): > > The body which was Christ’s was made and destroyed, but the spirit or soul that is Christ is eternal and is the same spirit or soul that is God, or so the Christians tend to believe. That is what I believe not to be possible at all. God is not limited to “spirit” or “soul”. > [@](#): > > When God was in the birning bush, did he not also exist everywhere else as is his want?When the Bush finaly burnt down did God die? God was not “in” the burning bush whihc was only a vision. > [@](#): > > When God walked and talked with Adam and Eve was he nowhere else at the same time? You talk about God as “being” somewhere or someone where I talk about a transcendent, eternal and uncreated God = an unlimited God. Once you limit God, you have no God but a limited creation of your fantasy. No creation can ever “be” God due to the fact that everything created by God is limited because it is creation. By the way: I take the Adam and Eve story and the whole story of the Creation as told in the OT as a metaphore. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![ResIpsaLoquitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@ResIpsaLoquitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ResIpsaLoquitor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/68 "2003-11-04T22:53:57Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > posted by ResIpsaLoquitor > > > > In short: Christ always existed as God, and so wasn’t “created” but merely entered the physical world in the Incarnation. > > This whole theory claims the existence of at the very least a divided God. Do you claim Christians believe in a divided God? That goes directly against the dogma of the monotheism. Nah. Speaking for the Catholics, we’re taught that God is three persons in one nature. It’s hard to say exactly what that means, since we’re taught that it’s a “mystery.” In theological terms, a “mystery” is something that’s revealed to be true but beyond human understanding. Still, I’m sure there’s plenty of Catholic (and non-Catholic) writings on the meaning of the Trinity. Here’s part of the Church’s own official statement from _The Catechism of the Catholic Church_: > [@](#): > > 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.[83] The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.”[84] In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”[85] > > 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.”[86] “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.”[87] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.”[88] The divine Unity is Triune. > > 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.”[89] Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.”[90] “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”[91] > > 256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople: > Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendour. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . [92] ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/69 "2003-11-04T23:02:57Z")
**Aldebaran** , are you essentially saying that there should be no insoluble mysteries regarding the nature of God? > [@](#): > > 1.Jesus didn’t create, he was created. > 2. Since Jesus was human, he wasn’t eternal. He died. > 3. Jesus was hardly transcendent. No; according to Christian theology, the person of Jesus existed eternally as God together with the other two persons of God - three persons, but not three Gods, but each person being fully God (it isn’t supposed to be logical) The only sense in which Jesus was ‘created’ is that a human body was born, which he fully inhabited - he was ‘made flesh’, not made **of** flesh’. The mortal body of Jesus was killed, yes, but the spiritual person of Jesus was not (explanations of exactly what happened here are confusing and varied) (again, according to Christian theology) Death was not able to hold Jesus and he rose from the dead, reoccupying and transforming the body that had been killed. I’m really not getting what your problem is here. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/70 "2003-11-04T23:10:57Z")
Actually, there _should_ be no insoluble mysteries regarding the nature of God, give or take his personal life (we expect full disclosure of our leaders). Doesn’t ‘insoluble’ mean ‘doesn’t dissolve’?🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/71 "2003-11-04T23:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > \*\*Y’know, **Aldebaran** > It being the case that it is taken as axiomatic that EVERY person is driven by some being with an unlimited warranty, why are you surprised that God has driven a person at some point in history? The whole of Creation is “driven” by God constantly. > [@](#): > > Christianity presents _all_ human bodies as something like apparel, worn by spiritual entities. As this ‘connection’ is as yet _entirely_ outside the realm of study, there is no reason to think that God could not have donned a human body as a temporary fixture, without making himself something other than God. The human remained human with all the human limitations and needs. God has no limits and no needs. Jesus even died begging God not to leave him alone. Would God call God not to leave him? Would God ask God not to let him die? And then we don’t even touch here all the other aspects of the life of Jesus as told in the NT. That is the lifestory of a human. > [@](#): > > If you’re going to accept that people live on after they die, in _any_ form, then there is no reason to believe that God (or some part of God) couldn’t have animated a human body for a time. \*\* How do you “part” God when God is uncreated to begin with? And since we all are “animated” by God since we are part of Creation, there is no difference at all between one human and an other in this “being animated”. And you also overlook in your description of God “animating” a human body the whole Christology debate which only serves to figure out “how fully” Jesus was God and “how fully” Jesus was human and so on… Sorry, but you suppose God became a human and wanted the world to know that, as Christians claim was the goal of the Jesus/God appearence. Well, to begin with (all the other objections I have left aside for a second) I suppose that He would leave no doubts left about this appearance at all. There wouldn’t be endless debating necessary spread over centuries to find out what Christology until this very day coulnd’t figure out at all. With all the differences in interpretations leading to hostility and bloodshed and whatever that was the result of all these discussions among humans. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/72 "2003-11-04T23:23:33Z")
Mangetout, He was born out of a woman. That means: he was born out of a human. That means: he was “flesh out of flesh” and not “made flesh” without the help of a human. That means that he was created by God out of a human just like all humans are created by God out of a human. By the way: Before you start about “virgin birth” - which isn’t even an issue since Mary still remainss a woman giving birth to a human - there is research published on woman’s eggs developping foetus-like tissues and even hair without any sperm being around from far or nearby. (Now don’t cry “cite” since I don’t even have it anymore. I received that information a few years ago from a doctor. But since you people are so in love with the internet and find it worthwile reading articles published on it, I’m sure you can find publications somewhere.) Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![ResIpsaLoquitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@ResIpsaLoquitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ResIpsaLoquitor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/73 "2003-11-04T23:35:19Z")
Funny, I’ve seen cites that say that people who postulate something are responsible for finding the supporting evidence. Although I don’t have that cite handy. Ah, well, I’m sure somebody can find one. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/74 "2003-11-04T23:37:06Z")
**Aldebaran** > [@](#): > > The whole of Creation is “driven” by God constantly. > … > And since we all are “animated” by God since we are part of Creation, there is no difference at all between one human and an other in this “being animated”. This, I believe, would depend on your Christian faction. Most factions allow for an element of free will, otherwise most of the bible is total shlock. (If there are no souls besides God to control people’s actions, then what’s going to be judged?) And if you’re not arguing from within a Christian frame, then you’re wasting our time. The question of wether Jesus the incarnate God is feasable within Christian ideology is interesting. The question of wether a non-believer can deny it, is not. > [@](#): > > How do you “part” God when God is uncreated to begin with? Firstly, the properties of being indivisible and being uncreated (and, presumably, existent) are not related. There is no inherent reason that something that existed at the start of time would be incapable of dividing itself. Particularly if it were all powerful. But, again, this is beside the point. Consider your own situation. You exist in the form of a nine-letter screen name, and the set of all messages you have generated under that screen name. Within the universe of this message board, that is what you are. Yet, (presumably) you also exist as a living, breathing being. When you created the limited, confined manifestation of yourself on this message board, you did not in any way lessen yourself physically, nor are your actions outside the message board confined by the fact that you have a manefestation within it. Why should god be any more limited than _you_ are from having an avatar? Being omnipresent, he wouldn’t even have to leave it to catch a snack or go to the bathroom. > [@](#): > > And you also overlook in your description of God “animating” a human body the whole Christology debate which only serves to figure out “how fully” Jesus was God and “how fully” Jesus was human and so on… > Sorry, but you suppose God became a human and wanted the world to know that, as Christians claim was the goal of the Jesus/God appearence. Actually, such a discussion is a totally separate issue. We call Jesus a human because he (reportedly) looked like a human, walked like a human, and quacked like a human. It’s convenent to call him that. However, since his body was started secretly hidden away within Mary’s womb, we haven’t a clue what is physical makeup actually was. For all we can tell from the text, he was half human, one third diety, and a sixth rottweiler. Whatever he was, he was convincingly human even when being cut up, and claimed he was both a man and a first-generation descendant of God. Maybe if we get a sample of his DNA we can know for sure, but until then people can speculate wildly about it to their heart’s content. (On preview: just because you know of another way that the virgin birth might have happened, doesn’t mean it happened your way. Of course.) Regarding Jesus chatting with God on the cross, see the aforementioned (and ‘officially’ confusing) trinity business. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/75 "2003-11-04T23:51:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*Mangetout, > > He was born out of a woman. That means: he was born out of a human. That means: he was “flesh out of flesh” and not “made flesh” without the help of a human. > > That means that he was created by God out of a human just like all humans are created by God out of a human. \*\* No; (in Christian theology) it simply _doesn’t_ mean that (well, perhaps it _does_ mean that in your personal view/interpretation) - the event of Jesus’ birth is explicitly described as a _singular and special_ event. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/76 "2003-11-04T23:55:49Z")
(or rather the event of Jesus’ _conception_) Now, of course, all kinds of skeptical and scientific arguments can be made about why God can’t exist and why the virgin birth can’t have happened and why Jesus probably wasn’t who the Bible says he was etc… but (unless I’m mistaken) this thread assumes the existence of a god and is about whether or not he could in any way become human if he so desired. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/77 "2003-11-05T00:51:27Z")
Thanks **Aldebaran** for the responses so far… Can God be limited to being Human in one place? Whom does that limiting? If God does the limiting than I see no reason to say he cannot limit himself to being Human. Or at least to being that part of a Human body which we describe as conciseness, or spirit, or soul. But then is this self limited being still God? I think that by exercising restraint something does not become something else, and can think of no reason why it should. Another defining property of God is I believe, that God has Free Will, this if accepted means that God can choose to not use his perfection of knowledge and power… In fact the Creation taking 7 days is proof of this, for if God used his infinite power the Creation would have taken no time at all, he instead chooses to use the finite power necessary to make creation in a non zero period of time (not that I believe creation, but it is a story shared by Jew, Christian, and Muslim). He exists outside time and space, how he chooses to exist within time and space is his own decision, after all he made all time and space. ---
**Author:** ![tkbarbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@tkbarbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tkbarbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/78 "2003-11-05T00:55:02Z")
The topic for the thread, as mentioned above, is that of God’s ability to be realised in flesh. A more significant question may be to ask why be realised in flesh? The theme of the thread seems to be for reasoned & rational (no baiting intended for using such loaded terms) arguments for establishing something about divine nature _without_ extensive quoting of scripture and appeal to theological dogma. So, lets loosely apply some secular dogma - Ockham’s Razor; “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” Decide which option is the simplest. The notion of simple elegance is apparant in all religious truths I have come accross; it should be the case here. Obfuscated complexities or artificial subtleties are often a symptom of human innovation rather than divine knowledge. It remains then to ask: Which proposal is more elegant? - God is one, numerically identical to himself only, “the greatest conceivable being” to para-quote Anselm, creates all and is sole master of Judgement. - God is one in three distinct persons, each of equal divinity. God realises himself as a “consubstantial” human being, and from God via this human being the third divine aspect - the Holy Spirit, flows. Judgement is intricate and salvation is achieved only by “accepting” the sacrifice God makes in his human form. I do not see any fundamental flaws in my presentation of the two proposals, there are obviously many qualifications to place on them but I feel they capture the essence. I can see why appealing to a notion as subjective as “elegance” or “simplicity” may not have the force required for this debate but it is an aspect that has not been raised so far and it deserves some air. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/79 "2003-11-05T01:19:35Z")
Mmmmmm, but … - There is no God is still more “elegant and simple”. But is a right bugger when we want to have a theological discussion 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/80 "2003-11-05T01:22:13Z")
**Aldebaran** : Since you agree that God [Allah] can do things beyond the comrehension of human beings, it’s quite simple to say that God is/was present in the being of J.C. and that how that came to be is beyond our comprehension. I believe Christians call it “the mystery of faith”. In short, religion is the realm of faith, not reason. You cannot reason your way through a religious doctrine, especially when you accept that God can do things beyond our comprehension. Anything is possible. **Anything**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046.md?page=5)