If someone claimed to be the Son of God today…

[Nutcracks]

If someone claimed today all the things that Jesus did/said, would you believe them?

Curious about how people would respond in today’s world.

Another thought comes to mind for those who believe that Adam was the first man created by God.

What I can't fathom from both, Judaism and Christianity who both say that God had a son. Only that Jews believe it was Ezra and Christians not only believe, Jesus is the 'only' son of God but God himself?

I am just utterly confused?

How many Gods are there? Both, Jews and Christians cannot then be worshipping same God otherwise God would have two sons?

To make matters even more confusing, the Muslims say they only worship the One God, the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad?

And if God is able to create Adam without a Mother or a Father then why wouldn't God be able to create Jesus without a Father?

This begs the question, who created Adam? Was it God or Jesus? But, Jesus wasn't born into a human family several centuries after Adam?

And who is managing and controlling the universe and beyond whilst Jesus was inside the womb of his mother for around 9 months?

This all seems to an indoctrinated mind of something from the Greek folklore stories than anything else. Because it is not humanly possible to understand the logic let alone put ones trust into or faith.

But, clearly, it makes sense to a lot of people and they are entitled to their faith and beliefs that makes sense to them and provides comfort.

I may be able to untangle some of what you are asking, hopefully!

Only that Jews believe it was Ezra and Christians not only believe, Jesus is the 'only' son of God but God himself?

I was not aware the Jews think Ezra is the son of God. I don't think they do! I think this is something that comes from the Koran but it's not true. Christians believe in Jesus as the Son of God and part of the Trinity which means He is God.

This begs the question, who created Adam? Was it God or Jesus?

John 1:1-5 says All things were created through Jesus (since He is the Word):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

But, Jesus wasn't born into a human family several centuries after Adam?

God chose to take on human form, so he became 100% human whilst still being 100% God, and incarnated via the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as Jesus. He existed since the beginning of time, however, even before that, and lives now. His humanity is a descendant of Adam. I know it's hard to get one's head around it!

And who is managing and controlling the universe and beyond whilst Jesus was inside the womb of his mother for around 9 months?

God the Father!

How many Gods are there? Both, Jews and Christians cannot then be worshipping same God otherwise God would have two sons?

Only one God, who exists as 3 persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God has one son only. Christians do worship the God of Israel. We have been grafted into God's family via the death of Jesus for our sins, if we accept Him as our saviour.

To make matters even more confusing, the Muslims say they only worship the One God, the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad?

Well, even though God is the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, I would say Muslims are not worshipping the same God as they do not accept Jesus as the Son and cannot be forgiven their sins as a result. Mohammed clearly didn't know God, imo.

A very good summary of the Christian position.

I always shake my head at the absolutely balderdash that Islam puts out about Judaism and Christianity. I think most people forget/don’t realise that it’s half integration of Judaism and Christianity was a well rehearsed tactic used by almost every aspiring and actual empire to create enough synergy with its target/conquered lands yet enough difference to clearly set out who was in power. Hence early Muslims praying towards Jerusalem, visitation by Gabriel etc. it’s a religion devised solely with the aim to conquer tactically important lands namely the holy land/obtain access to the Mediterranean. All the stuff about everyone being a Muslim, Ezra being Gods son blah blah blah is a well known methodology- first used large scale really by Alexander the Great to make assimilation by native populations
smoother. Similar to the Romans using existing holy places/dates of native populations, toning in their gods to existing gods etc. But Islam was built entirely on the conquering ambitions of Mohammed. There’s quite a bit of scholarly writing now about how quite a few stories in the Quran nicked things from early, what we refer to as Gnostic, Christians, eg, probably the most famous being the clay birds.

Thank you @AlteredStater for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated.

If there are people out there who can fathom a being that can be 100% man and 100% God at the same time without being looney in the head because of the clear contradiction then they are a much better person than I am. Because I simply cannot comprehend it.

From what is being said, that Jesus came to save the Jews because they had gone far astray but they rejected his message and allegedly persecuted him. Only a select few believed in his message and followed him and who were later called the Christians?

Is my understanding correct?

So, Jesus never came to save the whole humanity? Neither did he die for the sins of anyone else, or even die on the cross at all.

So, where did this salvation through Jesus come from?

Are you saying that your God is so cruel that he left the rest of humanity to go to hell because they didn't believe in Jesus?

How are the rest of humanity supposed to know and believe in Jesus if he only came for the Jews?

Plus, you didn't answer question about Adam.

"And if God is able to create Adam without a Mother or a Father then why wouldn't God be able to create Jesus without a Father?"

Surely, Adam would have a far greater claim to be a higher god considering he didn't have a mother or a father?

I didn't see John quoting Jesus directly?

Are bible the literal word of God or Jesus himself? Or are they simply collections of books written by or the inspiration of unknown authors for whom there no authentic biography or lineages records anywhere that can at least prove they were present and met and conversed with Jesus?

It is well known that nothing ever was written down at the life time of Jesus so where did all these books come from?

I mean to prove something is authentic, one must go to the original sources. Jesus spoke Arameic, are there any Bible in Aramaic?

Isn't it a folly to have faith or believe in something without not knowing the origin or evidence of something which have been altered, changed, words added and deleted from it and still attribute it to someone else no less than Someone claiming to be God himself?

Why would anyone have the audacity to change the word of God? And on whose authority?

Yet the bibles have been going through the same process ever since it's Inception?

Sorry, don't quite understand your diatribe about Islam. Thought we were discussing Jesus?

If you want to talk about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism I can discuss those too. Absolutely.

And I believe the correct spelling is Muhammad and not Mohammad.

And if you didn't know about Ezra then I recommend talking to respected Jewish scholars and do research using reputable materials.

Oh I know that followers of Mohammed (due to the different alphabets it can be either - this often happens also in the use of translating Hebrew into Latin script. The translations often depend on phonics).

Which Jewish scholars are you talking about? All the ones I know disagree with you.

My “diatribe” was to explain why Islam sought to subtly change what Christian and Jewish beliefs were (incidentally this also covers the “everyone is Muslim” line). It’s important to understand what the contemporary situation was when Islam was established (just as I always point out re Christianity - are you similarly outraged I did that because you don’t seem to have commented on that)

@KnowThatIKnowNot I find it helps me to comprehend the 100% man and 100% God issue if I don't imagine it like a bucket that's trying to cram twice as much into it. Rather, there are 2 buckets. One is marked 'Human' and the other is 'God'. For all of us, the 'Human' bucket is 100% full and God is 100% empty. For Jesus, both buckets are 100% full.

From what is being said, that Jesus came to save the Jews because they had gone far astray but they rejected his message and allegedly persecuted him. Only a select few believed in his message and followed him and who were later called the Christians?

Yes the Jews had frequently gone against God's laws (despite the fact that when they obeyed, everything went really well for them, and when they didn't then things went decidely pear-shaped) and if you read through the OT, particularly in Judges, you'll see just how bad things got. I sat there thinking 'noooo, no don't do that! Why would you do that?' then they do, and things go badly again. In the end God sent his Son as a final blood sacrifice (as he was the only human to be completely sinless) to pay for everyone's sins for all time.

The blood sacrifice thing might sound crazy but remember the laws God gave the Israelis was to sacrifice lambs, chickens, oxen etc for the times they sinned. There were very precise rules about which and how often, and the animals always had to be 'without blemish'. So you couldn't just take your poorly goat that was going to die as a sacrifice.

God already knew that the people would reject Jesus and his message, if you believe God is all-knowing. Anyhoo, whilst Jesus was alive, in his 3 years of ministry, he healed the sick, cast out demons and created quite a stir, to the point where the authorities became uneasy and certainly the Jewish pharisees felt theatened. He was mobbed by crowds who listened to him preaching. After he was crucified, understandably for a short time his followers must have been distraught, then news spread from around 100 or so witnesses who saw him alive. He ate and drank with them, and after awhile he ascended to Heaven. After that, the Holy Spirit came and they went out to start spreading the 'good news' to as many as they could. At first those following the teachings of Jesus were said to follow 'The Way'. Or they were called the Nazarenes. It was the Greeks who named them the Christians.

So, Jesus never came to save the whole humanity? Neither did he die for the sins of anyone else, or even die on the cross at all.

Er yes he very much DID die on the cross and yes he did die to save the whole of humanity. What was at first God's plan for Israel as his chosen people was now available to all people, Jew and Gentile alike, salvation for all.

So, where did this salvation through Jesus come from?

His blood shed for everyone, you and me.

Are you saying that your God is so cruel that he left the rest of humanity to go to hell because they didn't believe in Jesus?
How are the rest of humanity supposed to know and believe in Jesus if he only came for the Jews?

No, no, no! He came for everyone, not just the Jews. Probably why the gospel is also called the Good News. The gospel spread out from Jerusalem to many countries around. See the book of Acts. The story is there. No-one at all needs to go to Hell, but we do have free will and if someone chooses not to take that gift of eternal salvation then...

Will continue on with your questions in my next post as these are getting very long!

Again, a really interesting answer, I hope you don’t mind me adding a couple of points

I look at it like this a person can be a son, a father, a husband and a brother. Being a husband doesn’t make him only 50% brother.

Re Jesus coming to save the whole world not just the Jews - John 1:29

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!.

Im not sure either where @KnowThatIKnowNot got the idea Jesus didn’t die on the cross from - can they explain this?

My understanding is that Jesus came to the Jews because he was fulfilling the Jewish prophecy and it was important that the house of the Israelites )Gods chosen people) was put in order first, but Paul was chosen by God to spread the message amongst the non- Jews as the Word was for everyone who chose to believe.

@KnowThatIKnowNot I’m not sure if you have read the Bible but if you’re seeking to understand Christianity that’s probably the best way to start.

"And if God is able to create Adam without a Mother or a Father then why wouldn't God be able to create Jesus without a Father?"
Surely, Adam would have a far greater claim to be a higher god considering he didn't have a mother or a father?

Bit confused because Jesus did in effect have no earthly father, biologically. He often speaks of his heavenly father, God the Father.

No, Adam rapidly fell into sin. Not having a mother or father doesn't give you a higher claim to be god! Sadly, Adam's fall was the beginning of the fall for everyone else, and you only have to read the OT to see how that went.

I didn't see John quoting Jesus directly?

John 1:1-18 is about Jesus. Not quoting him.

Are bible the literal word of God or Jesus himself? Or are they simply collections of books written by or the inspiration of unknown authors for whom there no authentic biography or lineages records anywhere that can at least prove they were present and met and conversed with Jesus?

As far as we know, yes they are the words of Jesus. Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by those disciples, yes after the death of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit helps you to remember the exact words. Jesus did after all chose those men and knew that later on they would be writing down a record of what happened.

Time of writing, estimated to be:
Matthew 70-90 AD
Mark 30-60 AD (first gospel written)
Luke 60-70 AD
John 70-100 AD

You'll have to ask a Bible scholar if you want more historical details as I don't know more. I do know Luke was a well-educated physician and was perfectly capable of writing down his experiences.

I mean to prove something is authentic, one must go to the original sources. Jesus spoke Arameic, are there any Bible in Aramaic?

Not a whole Bible. The OT was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic. I believe scholars say most of the NT was written in Greek but some think Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew, probably because Matthew's main 'audience' was his fellow Jews, whereas Luke was aiming his writing at the Greeks (Gentiles).

Isn't it a folly to have faith or believe in something without not knowing the origin or evidence of something which have been altered, changed, words added and deleted from it and still attribute it to someone else no less than Someone claiming to be God himself?

There's huge amounts of evidence, again I'm not the right person to go through it all with you. That also applies to the last 2 questions.

Delighted to have another Christian weigh in!

Agree that reading the Bible (all of it) is the best place to start and you will of course have many questions, I did and still do! That's how you learn.

I’m not an orthodox Christian- but I do know the Bible inside out - I have a more esoteric view - but that’s my personal belief system. Each to their own. I do think it’s very important though that people respect what is actually written in holy books and not try and spread lies and I will stand up to anyone spreading those things. There’s a difference between different interpretations and falsifying what is and isn’t there. There’s a lot of universal truth in the words of Jesus and in the wider Bible.

I think every Christian differs from the next in some way or another. Provided we stick to the core beliefs then it's fine. I agree, falsifying is wrong and needs to be called out.

At the time of the writing of the Gospels Greek was still the Lingua Franca (a hangover from the empire of Alexander). It was soon to replaced by Latin as a result of the Roman Empire, it was only with the British Empire this effectively changed to English (much to France’s annoyance 😀)

I assume the comments re changes to the Bible are meant as a foil against the fact it’s not allowed to add anything etc to the Quran. Of course Mohammed was illiterate and relied on scribes to write down his words. We can only guess how accurate these were. Of course if one looks at the Hadith all
of those points @KnowThatIKnowNot is trying to make re the Bible can equally be levied at the Hadith.

The problem with any texts is being written, rewritten editing the translation means not a single word can be trusted eg if a historian wrote a history book but it was the same, edited , rewritten, translated etc hardly anyone would trust any truth to it, so why do some trust religious texts ? And if its faith then faith in what?

Thank you all for your replies and contributions. Like I said, I am more than happy to talk about other religions as a comparative study. And let us leave Islam and the Qur'an alone for now less we digress.

I haven't read the bibles nor will I have the time to, as there are many different versions and editions. Being a holy scripture, it is strange that there should be any differences in it let alone different versions?

How can one have sure faith when you don't even know which is correct version?

Anyhow, is there anything in either the old or the new testament that a layperson can read and understand which mentions something demonstrable in the real world which can only be known to God? Another words, something or events that is humanly impossible to know unless God have told us in the holy scriptures?

To believe in a deity, one must have hard evidence which will lead to developing sure faith that it is indeed from God.

How can you prove that the bible you have in your possession that it is from God and not someone else?

We already know that Jesus did not write anything down nor anything was written down long after his death/ascension to heaven.

Now the suggestion put forward is that the Holy spirit came and helped the unknown authors depicting as Mark, Luke, Matthew etc.

My understanding from the scriptures that the Holy Spirit (Angel Gabriel) only descends upon the Prophets and not anyone else?

If you are saying the bible authors were helped by the Holy Spirit then I would say, where is the evidence of that being the case?

There will surely be written records of that have indeed taken place, not for the gentiles but to increase the faith of the followers?

A blind faith in a deity without evidences that a layperson can see, ponder upon and witness does not help anyone,

For me to believe in something, it must make sense to me, I must understand it, be able to disprove it and only then I can make an informed decision as to the validity of the claim.

My understanding from the scriptures that the Holy Spirit (Angel Gabriel) only descends upon the Prophets and not anyone else?

The Holy Spirit isn't the Angel Gabriel. They're totally different. The Holy Spirit is one of the persons of God's Trinity. Gabriel is one of many angels created by God (he appeared to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and also to Mary, by the way, in both cases to announce forthcoming conception) God spoke directly to many of the prophets in the OT. Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah to name but a few. Also God spoke to various Kings such as David and Solomon and of course famously to Moses.

The Holy Spirit will come to anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour. You will be instantly filled with the Holy Spirit who will then act as a guide, companion, teacher in your life. Also He bestows spiritual gifts such as healing, teaching, prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc.

is there anything in either the old or the new testament that a layperson can read and understand which mentions something demonstrable in the real world which can only be known to God? Another words, something or events that is humanly impossible to know unless God have told us in the holy scriptures?

There is so much prophecy in the Bible, much of which has already come to pass. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (which took place in 70 AD). You'll find that described in Matthew 24. There are lots of prophecies in the OT which I don't have time to find right now (it's nearly 2 a.m. and I'm only awake because I can't sleep right now).

We already know that Jesus did not write anything down nor anything was written down long after his death/ascension to heaven.

Not true. Much was written but not all of it is in the Bible. Josephus, for example, wrote a lot of the history down in a very detailed way, and there are the Apocrypha as well.

If many people just made up stories to put in a book later called the Bible, they would never have produced what we now have which is incredibly interlinked and detailed. You're only really going to start seeing that if you study the Bible. A cursory glance through it won't reveal any of that.

Being a holy scripture, it is strange that there should be any differences in it let alone different versions?

Because these are translations from the original Hebrew and Greek (and a bit of Aramaic) into English, and because word order differs in English the translations vary as to how much they are 'word for word' or instead try to encapsulate the meaning in a more natural English language way. Different versions are ranked according to which part of the spectrum they lie on. I favour versions closer to word for word. If you were to translate exactly everything word for word, it would make a very unreadable text in parts as our language does not flow in the same way as Greek or Hebrew. So there has to be some kind of compromise, but that doesn't mean the core meaning is lost.

There will surely be written records of that have indeed taken place, not for the gentiles but to increase the faith of the followers?

What do you mean, 'not for the gentiles'? Jesus came to spread the word to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

John 10:16 “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd”. (Jesus speaking)

The other sheep are the gentiles.

The faith of the followers is continually being renewed by the Holy Spirit, by the activity of prayer and praise.

John 14:25-26 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. (bolding mine)

John 14:16-17 "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you

I haven't read the bibles nor will I have the time to, as there are many different versions and editions.

This is a stumbling block to you progressing in understanding Christianity. Choose one version, I would suggest the New King James Version (KJV) and start there. If you don't make the time, then eventually you will have no time left and it will be too late.

On the contrary, rewrites of texts can be very informative for historians.

Over the years many original tests have been discovered which have remained hidden for over a millenia. These are freely available for study.

If you refuse to read the Bible how can you discuss Christianity? What are you actually discussing? Where on earth have you got the idea that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit? He is an archangel. Christianity has built up over millenia, integrating peoples direct experiences of God and studies. The concept of sola scriptura is not universal in Christianity. What sort of “proof” are you talking about? Can you give an example from another religion as you clearly don’t know anything about Christianity except through the distorted lens of other competing religions. If you refuse to read the Bible what “sciptures” are you talking about when you say “my understanding from the scriptures”? Clearly not the Bible ( or indeed any Christian gospel).

Any news on you “prominent Jewish scholars” I (and, I’m sure several real Jewish scholars) are keen to hear you back up your spurious claims about Jewish beliefs.

In reality you can’t discuss any religions seriously you can clearly only discuss one religion’s view of other religions.

Read any Bible, then research into the ancient Greek language and read it in that. Look at the published fragments and their reconstructions of texts which have been located eg the nag hamadi library. Study hermeneutics.

So what do you believe in that can do all the things you want?

Quite frankly, you clearly have absolutely zero knowledge about Christianity and the history and structure of it. Yo have a debate about it you need some level of actual knowledge rather than made up propaganda. Yet you clearly aren’t interested in learning actual facts, you just want to repeat all the lies and misinformation you have acquired. Please do tell us where you learned your incorrect versions of Judaism and Christianity from? (We can guess due to the nature of the lies and misinformation but kern to see you confirm it).

I’ve never read the Bible - I doubt many atheists have. Some was covered during school along with other religions. I’m interested in facts which are questionable in the bible

But if you haven’t studied the Bible, how can you question things in the Bible. I’m not an orthodox Christian but I realise to have any meaning discussion about it you need to have studied both it and the contemporary religious, political, social and intellectual situation as well as the relevant languages of the time in which it was written. How can you hope to have serious conversation about an historical document otherwise.

What the PP said, you really need to read the Bible yourself instead of talking about 'facts which are questionable'. Otherwise you are getting your 'facts' second or third hand.

That make me laugh out loud! The Bible is hardly first hand

@Feelingathomenow I have the strong feeling that @KnowThatIKnowNot is either a Muslim or comes from a Muslim background. It would be useful if they admitted that, of course.