# The Aesthetical Jesus - Part IV

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 16, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898 "2009-06-16T01:16:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 115

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/115 "2009-07-11T02:53:59Z")

</div>

> [@Liberal](#):
>
> In skimming my post, you might have missed the very last sentence, which referenced you to a verse you might not have clicked. And so, for your convenience, I will simply quote it here, despite that it is jumping ahead.
> 
> “I and the Father are one.”
> 
> John 10:30

What, you mean the one just a few verses before he makes reference to god saying "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. " (Psalm 82: 6) Doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong claim to some special standing of Jesus at all. Oh, but that’s right, you’d actually have to be reading the text to pick that out.

> [@](#):
>
> There is no point in any condescension.

And yet you find time to write out 3 paragraphs of nothing but!

> [@](#):
>
> But as was discussed in the Jewish threads to which you previously referred, it is not necessary to interpret a unity as solitary in nature (i.e., comprising one and only one).

Whether or not you can interpret unity as such, there is no way to do so with respect to Jewish views of their god. You’ve already conceded as much:

> [@The Jew Question \[defining Jew and Christian. ed. title\]](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-jew-question-defining-jew-and-christian-ed-title/501809/127):
>
> **Lib** here is something that you’ll just to take my post as my cite\*: We do love our poetic metaphors and again Torah is chock full of 'em but God’s oneness is not a metaphor in Judaism; it is the central concept and the central prayer. It’s the closest we got to a creed and by some accounts is one.
> 
> \*Ach, I could find dozens of supporting documents if you want, but honestly, just trust me on this.

As that is already established as the state of Jewish thought, then it is absolutely part of what Jesus claims to be upholding.

> [@The Jew Question \[defining Jew and Christian. ed. title\]](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-jew-question-defining-jew-and-christian-ed-title/501809/129):
>
> Not a problem. I know of no one more trustworthy than you.

> [@](#):
>
> The nature of God has already been established. It’s in this thread. God is spirit. That is His nature. The supporting verse is available for you to find and read.

And yet this says nothing within the context of that part of the discussion – which was that you made claims about the nature of god, backed up by your statement that the dualistic nature of man had already been established. As god is something other than man, the point does not follow.

> [@](#):
>
> I have never said that other points of view are invalid. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that I am writing out my witness?

Nothing is difficult to understand about that. What is so difficult to understand that, on a message board that is supposed to be dedicated to the fighting of ignorance, such an act of witnessing may not go unchallenged?

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898)._