SO... when did jesus become God jr.?

blurp

he was born to a Jewish mother.

FUNNY!

:rofl:

:shrug:

:applause: :thumbsup:

He's the next in line to take over when God dies or is no longer capable of performing his official duties.

...those embarrassing nude photos of Yahweh are going to come out.

:rofl:

Thor and Odin have also been mighty quiet lately.

J.C., Big Daddy and, the Spook ?

"Promised me the known world, he did. I was to be taken to Rome, house by the Forum. Slaves. Asses' milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me had... voom! Like a rat out of an aqueduct."

"The bastard!"

The Judean People's Front!

The Romans!

How much do you hate the Romans?

Official Constantinian doctrine states he was always God. "Begotten and not made." He always existed. This doctrine is shared by all major, surviving Xtian denominations because they all trace their history to the council of Nicea in the early 4th century CE.

If you asked Paul of Tarsis (St. Paul) he would ask what you meant. As far as he was concerned, Christ is a spiritual being that resides in heaven and was never a man. The earliest Xtian writings in the NT at the letters of St. Paul and he does not mention the event's of JC's life, the crucifiction, resurrection or miracles. The Arians of the early 4th century believed JC was made by YHWH at the time of conception. They were outlawed by the Xtian emperor and many were executed over this point. The Nestorians thought that JC was two entities: Jesus the man and the immortal Logos mentioned in the opening sentence of Gospel of John. By contrast, Monophysitists believed he was deivine only as if he had no Earthly body. This is different from the orthodox position in some tiny and pointless way, but this view persisted well into the 6th century in the eastern Roman Empire.

The real answer, of course, is "never" because neither the Logos nor probably the man were real. It never happened. It was made up to provide an alternative liturgy to a Jewish heresy at first and then to the non-Jews.

Then they had to make him a demigod.

They borrowed from the numerous virgin birth of a demigod stories that had been know since the bronze age.

Sure, the idea was hardly original. Once this tale was set firmly in the common wisdom, the church had to deify Christ.

The earliest NT writings note Christ's divinity, but only the latest writings such as Gospel of John mention the virgin birth.

John contains no birth narrative. Neither does Mark.

Only Luke and Matthew do.
Which means it was probably first found in Q. Which would've well pre-dated John. Most scholars put Q at least 30-40 years before John, and maybe earlier.

It is still after Mark and the writings of Paul. John was around 100 CE.

It's only mentioned in Luke and Matthew, which are probably based on Q. Q is figured to date from no later than the year 60, and many scholars date it earlier than that. Paul hints at the virgin birth in a couple of places. It's pretty clear that it was a part of the tradition from within 30 years of Jesus, maybe earlier.

:shrug:

he never makes mention of a human father, but only of Jesus' mother, while referring to Jesus as God's son. For instance, in Galatians 4:4--"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..." Here Jesus is the Son of God and of a woman, with no mention of a human father.

Paul's theology is based more on Jesus' death and resurrection, so he doesn't write much about Jesus' birth--or even his life. But when he does, there's an implication of a virgin birth, if not explicit.

...that was later enshrined as law.

you are trying to make sense out of a myth...

I heart u for that.

When Constantine and his cronies were sorting out Christian doctrine around the time of the Councils of Nicaea, one of the problems they had to resolve was the issue of "infallibility." Were the teachings of Christ unquestionably true, or was there some wiggle room? This was more than merely an academic issue, since Connie intended Christianity to form the basis for Imperial authority on Earth. If Christ's word was infallible, then the Emperor was infallible and could do whatever the hell he liked. If, on the other hand, Christ was just as prone to error as any other human, the Empire was on pretty shaky doctrinal ground, since it would be basing its decisions on teachings that may be wrong.

It was clear, therefore, that Christ's teachings had to be infallible; a lot of people's careers were riding on it. What was the easiest way to ensure infallibility? Declare Christ to be God in disguise. Since God is infallible, so is Christ. And the teachings of an infallible Christ are themselves infallible. Stands to reason, doesn't it? Problem solved! What's for lunch?

...it's a pretty good bet it is only to convince people to do and think stuff that otherwise would seem unreasonable.

I know one of the reasons Queen Elizabeth was reticent to execute Mary, Queen of Scots, was because she did not want to create a precedent of killing monarchs who had been anointed by god. After Elizabeth herself based her sovereignty on the very same claim. It also seems likely that Dubya encouraged the idea that he was selected by god to in an effort to erase the stain of his accession in violation of election laws.

...attached so much importance to proving that a particular monarch was a "usurper" who'd acquired the crown by nefarious means. Such illicit rulers could lawfully be deposed, since it was against God's will for them to have become monarch in the first place. Much of the action in Shakespeare's history plays revolves around the divine legitimacy of one king or another. Once a king had his "God License" revoked, his days were numbered.

Our current King George is following in the noble tradition of wrapping himself in both the flag and the Cross, in the hopes that they'll cover up his multitude of sins. Who was it that said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"? One could easily insert "religion" into that aphorism, too.

as chosen by God so that they can play the role of the scapegoat, which creates cohesion and deflects internal violence in the community. Those anointed in this way are both part of the community but different from it in basic ways, and thus can accept the violence building in a community. He says even the position of king started as a sacrificial office.

as early as 95 CE. Before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eye.

...also decided which texts from the large amount of scripture floating around at the time were to be considered "canon." The rest were apochryphal at best, heretic at worst. With so many source texts to choose from, it was well within the power of the Emperor to "edit" the Bible to tell whatever story he wanted.

Naturally, Constantine and his clerics ensured that the texts declaiming Christ's divinity were the ones that made the final cut.

Tne Johannine Corpus was a puzzling choice from the start. At the time of Constantine, it was generally believed that John the Apostle wrote all of it, including the frankly lunatic Book of Revelations. While subsequent scholarship casts doubt on the idea of a single author of the works, 5th Century theologists certainly believed it to be the case. That being so, John's writings had to have a big payoff to compensate for the inclusion of the loony-tunes ravings of "John the Divine." It's arguable that the support the other Johannine works give for Christ's divinity were just such a payoff.

The whole Niceaen confab was a big exercise in politics, where many points of doctrine were decided "through divine inspiration," neat shorthand for "whatever is politically expedient and will hold the Empire together."

Brown taught me to respect the Johannine writings, and the community which produced them. Yes, even the Revelation. Courage and faith in the face of persecution and exclusion is not something I want to criticize.

Faith perhaps less so, except insofar as it bolsters courage and provides comfort. But when faith and courage are corrupted to serve political ends, those ends (and the means used to achieve them) deserve strong criticism.

And what of the courage and faith of all the Christian scripturalists who didn't make it into the Bible, because their views were out of step with the "party line?" Those writings were call "heresy," and people who believed in them were subjected to even greater persecution by a church that should have known better.

I have no argument with the earnest beliefs of John. I do question greatly the motives of Constantine and his bishops.

And that's before mentioning whether the Comma Johanneum should even be in the Bible at all.

I'm not a fan. The notion that only a few chosen people could understand waht Jesus was about, and then only through carefully prescribed mystica experiences is about as far from what Jesus taught in the oldest gospels as possible. And then there's the issue of Gnosticism being a VERY late development in the Church.

And Constantine really had little to no say in what was the canon. He wasn't even that interested. I know the Dan Brown school of church history says otherwise, but Brown is not a trained historian.

...there's hardly much point in continuing this discussion. I will say however that I do not consider Dan Brown an authority on much of anything. The reading list upon which I base my "whining" is a bit more authoritative than that.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal
So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
and shall give account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

The one distinction between the view of the western church and the equally impossible view of the eastern church which remained under the control of the successors of Constantine until the eve of the modern era is that the present-day Orthodoxy states that the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father only (somehow no mother is needed) and not from the Son. In Catholicism, the HS proceeds from both. What is the practical difference? Obviously, there isn't any. Still in 1054 it was necessary for the bishop of Rome to invent a pretext for dissolving any allegiance to the emperor. The last Roman emperor to have any control over Italy was Justinian 500 years earlier and he had never even visited the eternal city.

Ironically, by excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople, Pope Leo IX effectively became the first protestant. Since that time, the eastern church has been called the Orthodoxy, the traditional title of the Constantinian church--it means "correct"--and the western church has been ironically known as Catholicism--meaning "universal" which it is not.

Almost as if they don't believe it themselves. "God is three, but also one. No, really. C'mon, would I lie to you? How the hell should I know how that's supposed to work? Only God can understand it. It is NOT a copout! Look, just take it on faith. Now, don't start pulling coins out of your pocket; I can't turn three of them into one. Who to you think I am, David friggin' Copperfield? But God could, if He wanted to. How should I know why he'd want to? Maybe it'd make the change in his pocket lighter. Or because He's bored. What am I talking about!?! Oh, look, just forget it!"

They know what they're talking about, they're just spelling it out and making sure all the fuckups can see why they're fucking up in the text.

God Jr.

:rofl:

:P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7036136&mesg_id=7036136
:D

like a zombie

But I don't know much about religion.. like why some of his followers think they can screw the rest of the world.

please pass the catsup.

The first Council of Nicea had a debate regarding just this question - What is the nature of the Holy Trinity: Was Jesus another God (homoiousios), or was he the same as God (homoousios)?

And a thousand years of bloodshed has resulted form this difference of one iota.

If you know what I mean.