Not taught in Sunday school: How Jesus became Son of God

[GiaCat]

It was not he, or his Apostles who knew him personally who proclaimed this. It happed hundreds of years later, declared by Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea (Who never knew Jesus). This proclamation helped to solidify the Christian Church as the one legitimate religion of the Empire, as well as strengthen Constantine's power base. So the claim Jesus is the Son of God is a few steps below 'Holy'.

They also assembled the Bible; conveniently censoring, rewriting and leaving out gospels that did not agree with their official doctrine.

You can start learning more here.

 

[phrodeau]

Jesus planned it all that way, and set up a special dispensation for all the people who would have believed in Him but died before the Council of Nicea. They all got the same deal as the ones who were part of Jerusalem's zombie invasion mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53

 

[GiaCat]

Never trust a zombie

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What about Owebama? Wasnt he a Messiah, too?

 

[eyer]

In the New Testament (which Christ is)...

...Jesus, others, and God ID the Nazarene as the Son of God, of which the below are single examples:

Jesus:

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. - Matthew 11:27 KJV

Others:

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. - Matthew 16:15-16 KJV

God:

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. - Mark 11:1

Nitpicking a single component of God's Word - in this case whether or not Jesus is the Son of God - is irrelevant to the totality of the issue of whether or not the Bible is true, ie, whether the God the Bible names is the One True God.

The Bible is a straight-forward, black and white deal: if any part of it is untrue, all of it is untrue.

Therefore, Jesus is either the Son of God - as the Bible clearly commands...

...or He is not.

It's sophomoric to employ the political corruption of the body of Christ (believers: the Biblical church) by Constantine's establishment of his universal (catholic) Church to discount the Word of God...

...because that doesn't address the archeological evidence of the Word of God which always existed during the almost 300 years between Christ's crucifixion and Constantine's bastardization of the Way.

Eg, The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (didache = teaching...you can read its text here: http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html) predates Constantine's establishment of Christianity as the acknowledged, political "religion" we view it as today by a couple of hundred years, yet it follows succinctly the lessons of the Word of God...

...including referring to the Nazarene as the Son of God.

It is the way of this physical world to demand "proof", hard evidence, a "miracle" before believing...

...but even then, natural man always needs more.

The spiritual realm simply requires faith...

...and spiritual man is born again out of this physical world by the Truth long written in his heart.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Jesus planned it all that way, and set up a special dispensation for all the people who would have believed in Him but died before the Council of Nicea. They all got the same deal as the ones who were part of Jerusalem's zombie invasion mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53

Jesus? Tim Tebow planned all this out. Just like he cleverly plans out all his come from behind victories.

 

[KRCummings]

It was not he, or his Apostles who knew him personally who proclaimed this. It happed hundreds of years later, declared by Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea (Who never knew Jesus). This proclamation helped to solidify the Christian Church as the one legitimate religion of the Empire, as well as strengthen Constantine's power base. So the claim Jesus is the Son of God is a few steps below 'Holy'.

They also assembled the Bible; conveniently censoring, rewriting and leaving out gospels that did not agree with their official doctrine.

You can start learning more here.

Um, no. You don't seem to have a real grasp of Christianity or the Council. Not surprising.

 

[Peregrinator]

The Bible is a straight-forward, black and white deal: if any part of it is untrue, all of it is untrue.

1) Merry Christmas and in case you're not around this week, Happy New Year, eyer.

2) This is a powerful statement. Has no part of the Bible ever been shown to be untrue, in your opinion?

 

[Image]

Eg, The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (didache = teaching[/B]...you can read its text here: http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html) predates Constantine's establishment of Christianity as the acknowledged, political "religion" we view it as today by a couple of hundred years, yet it follows succinctly the lessons of the Word of God......including referring to the Nazarene as the Son of God.

The text of the Didache, translated and edited by Tony Jones, is under the protection of a Creative Commons license.

You realize Tony Jones was not really around back then, right?

 

[eyer]

The text of the Didache, translated and edited by Tony Jones, is under the protection of a Creative Commons license.

You realize Tony Jones was not really around back then, right?

Actually, his real name back then was Abram Yousef, not Tony Jones...

...the apostles just had a peculiar sense of humor (they were Dallas Cowboys fans long, long before America adopted a specific team).

My personal copy of The Didache I complied myself in 2009 from two separate translations from its original Greek by two Greek scholars: Tim Sauder and Charles H. Hoole.

Sauder entitled his work: The Didache or The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles; A Writing Of The Early Church...

...Hoole titles his toil as The Didache, Also Known as the Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles.

Here's a part of my Compiler's Note to my personal-use copy:

With very few discrepancies, the two Didache(s), although by different translators, mirror each other in context verse-by-verse. The main difference between the two is the obvious translation into "King James" English by Mr. Hoole.

Eg, here's how each translation of Chapter One, verse 1 reads in my compilation (I distinguished Hoole's work from Sauder's by an "H" after the verse number; I also included - after each verse - the biblical reference verse I thought best; my references are from the KJV):


1 There are two ways: one of life and one of death; and the difference between the two ways is great.

1H There are two paths, one of life and one of death, and the difference is great between the two paths.

Jerimiah 21.8 And unto this people thou shalt say, Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death.


Not a big diff there between the two Didache translations, for sure...

...but verse 2 exemplifies the different style the two translators employed:


2 The way of life is this: first you should love God, who made you; secondly, love your neighbor as yourself; and whatsoever things you do not desire to be done to you, do not do them to someone else.

2H Now the path of life is this - first, thou shalt love the God who made thee, thy neighbor as thyself, and all things that thou wouldest not should be done unto thee, do not thou unto another.


2 Holy Bible references pertain here:


Matthew 22.37-39 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 7.12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


I've read that The Didache could've been in use before the end of the 1st century...

...the latest I've read of its origin is the 2nd century.

So, at worst, it was being taught 100 years before the time of Constantine's bastardization...

...at best, it's wisdom was being shared 200 years before the political corruption of the Way.

 

[Beco]

It was not he, or his Apostles who knew him personally who proclaimed this. It happed hundreds of years later, declared by Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea (Who never knew Jesus). This proclamation helped to solidify the Christian Church as the one legitimate religion of the Empire, as well as strengthen Constantine's power base. So the claim Jesus is the Son of God is a few steps below 'Holy'.

They also assembled the Bible; conveniently censoring, rewriting and leaving out gospels that did not agree with their official doctrine.

You can start learning more here.

Thats correct. The bible was basically the worlds very first book edit. They condensed down several manuscripts into one book, then sold it to the people. They have actually found the lost manuscripts. Pretty interesting.

What cracks me up is they actually built a church over the spot, that someone determined, where Jesus was supposedly crucified, its one of the holiest sites in Jerusalem. Can you imagine? Someone arbitarily said....this is the site! and the people follow.....

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

It was not he, or his Apostles who knew him personally who proclaimed this. It happed hundreds of years later, declared by Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea (Who never knew Jesus). This proclamation helped to solidify the Christian Church as the one legitimate religion of the Empire, as well as strengthen Constantine's power base. So the claim Jesus is the Son of God is a few steps below 'Holy'.

They also assembled the Bible; conveniently censoring, rewriting and leaving out gospels that did not agree with their official doctrine.

You can start learning more here.

So you are formulating a theology off of Wiki. You truly are an idiot.

 

[KRCummings]

Thats correct. The bible was basically the worlds very first book edit. They condensed down several manuscripts into one book, then sold it to the people. They have actually found the lost manuscripts. Pretty interesting.

What cracks me up is they actually built a church over the spot, that someone determined, where Jesus was supposedly crucified, its one of the holiest sites in Jerusalem. Can you imagine? Someone arbitarily said....this is the site! and the people follow.....

For fucks sake, just about everything you said here is wrong. Did you just make it up off the top of your head?

 

[1sickbastard]

It was not he, or his Apostles who knew him personally who proclaimed this. It happed hundreds of years later, declared by Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea (Who never knew Jesus). This proclamation helped to solidify the Christian Church as the one legitimate religion of the Empire, as well as strengthen Constantine's power base. So the claim Jesus is the Son of God is a few steps below 'Holy'.

They also assembled the Bible; conveniently censoring, rewriting and leaving out gospels that did not agree with their official doctrine.

You can start learning more here.

What, you think those interested in indoctrination are not terribly interested in teaching the young how to ask questions and do their own thinking?

shocking...

 

[fgarvb1]

Only one thing to say.



Oh, Jesus Christ!

 

[renard_ruse]

What, you think those interested in indoctrination are not terribly interested in teaching the young how to ask questions and do their own thinking?...

Thinking for myself always got me in trouble in the public schools.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Not taught in Sunday school: How Jesus became Son of God
It was not he, or his Apostles who knew him personally who proclaimed this. It happed hundreds of years later, declared by Emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea (Who never knew Jesus). This proclamation helped to solidify the Christian Church as the one legitimate religion of the Empire, as well as strengthen Constantine's power base. So the claim Jesus is the Son of God is a few steps below 'Holy'.

They also assembled the Bible; conveniently censoring, rewriting and leaving out gospels that did not agree with their official doctrine.

You can start learning more here.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Gospel of Mark is dated no later than 70 AD. The Gospel of John was written toward the end of the first century AD.

 

[Monkey_Face]

Personally, I'm still a little pissed at Noah over the whole dinosaur thing.

I mean, how do you just forget an entire race of giant lizards?

Seriously makes me think he did it on purpose.

 

[shoulderblade]

Thinking for myself always got me in trouble in the public schools.

That could be confirmed by a great many people.

 

[Beco]

For fucks sake, just about everything you said here is wrong. Did you just make it up off the top of your head?

Actually no, check Council of Nice. Also check Gregg Braden, Issah Effect

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was my opinion, but based on a show I just saw on the history of Jerusalem and I've been there several times. they built a church over the spot they think Jesus was crucified.....

 

[KRCummings]

Actually no, check Council of Nice. Also check Gregg Braden, Issah Effect

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was my opinion, but based on a show I just saw on the history of Jerusalem and I've been there several times. they built a church over the spot they think Jesus was crucified.....

The Council did not set the canon. It took hundreds of years to assemble the Bible that we have now.
The site of the crucifixion was not arbitrarily picked by someone later. It is specifically mentioned several times in the Gospels. There is a church on the site. You got that part right.

 

[phrodeau]

All told, there are several tons of lumber in the world labeled as authentic fragments of the cross of Jesus.

 

[Beco]

The Council did not set the canon. It took hundreds of years to assemble the Bible that we have now.
The site of the crucifixion was not arbitrarily picked by someone later. It is specifically mentioned several times in the Gospels. There is a church on the site. You got that part right.

Originally built by the mother of Emperor Constantine in 330 A.D., the Church of the Holy Sepulcher commemorates the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial.

On grounds of tradition alone, this church is the best candidate for the location of these events
Place of Crucifixion

Inside the church is a rocky outcropping which is the traditional place where the cross was placed. Archaeological excavations have demonstrated that this site was outside the city but close to one of its gates and thus would have been a good location for a crucifixion.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/holysepulcher.htm