Jesus Became God. Why?

If you are talking about the Pearly Gates magical soul trumped up in the 1st Century, so far it is 13.8 billion years to zero. Can you believe these guys tee you up like this?

The word Sola Scriptura isn't in the Bible but protestants all believe it. It was a term coined by a church father. Doesn't have any bearing on whether it's true or false. This is the lowest IQ/tier of argument.

And there's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian". It's a modern made up term used by dispensational heretics.

Your argument is on par with when Christ says "call no man father" then retarts argue that calling a priest father is going against Christ. It's beyond a ****ing stupid argument.

Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament than whatever you prefer for the new. I prefer New King James.

The Septuagint is the oldest translation and was used by the early church. The Hebrew translation came much later and was done by Jews who rejected Christ.

I'd recommend the Orthodox Study Bible.

Guess who knows why and how Jesus became god? You guessed it: craig1120.

What I’m saying now will stand the test of time, and you’ll be long forgotten.

You can doubt me and my place in the big picture, but you can’t doubt the second part of this comment—your life is irrelevant in the big picture and you just roll over and accept that.

WTF? Is this your Jesus rap, or just more delusional "I know the metaphysics of the universe by default and you don't?"

Answer:

I've asked you many times: tell me about your place in the big picture and how that came about. Or you still have absolutely nothing on that but an internal narrative that just presumes yourself to be a knower of god?

Sure, I’m not forthcoming at all. This is all fabricated to inflate my ego. Good thing you’re exposing me with your cleverness like “Where’s the evidence?” Derp.

Whatever helps you cope with your irrelevance.

Now who's trolling? What a clown you are.

Another irrelevant comes to pile on.

It stings doesn’t it? Knowing your life is irrelevant.

I'd imagine a guy pretending to live his life for an imaginary being would know. Could never be me though.

“I can’t risk feeling foolish. That’s wayyyyy too much to risk.

I must protect my irrelevant life from such risk!”

At ease gentlemen. It’s over now. Have a good weekend.

So you admit you feel foolish. You also look and sound foolish to everyone you come in contact with. No wonder you have conversations with language models and post here 60 times a day.

Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to a 1st Century vampire myth? Wheresoever drinking blood gives you eternal life, stop and ask yourself about the veracity of the claim and the origin of the belief. I mean if that's not too much to ask.

All very well said.

As an aside, I'm a Dispensationalist, and I don't even use or like the term "Judeo-Christian."

And the folks who object to calling a pastor "Father" don't seem to object to Father's Day.

And the folks who oppose wearing a crucifix on the grounds that 'Christ is no longer on the cross" typically don't object to a Manger Scene on the grounds that "Jesus is no longer a baby."

Just sayin'.

Thanks for the recommendations.

I use the King James Version primarily.

There are no scriptures in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, that says Almighty God (Jehovah the Father) was literally in Jesus (the son). If you can find one, do post it for the rest of us to see. Be sure to include Bible book, chapter, and verse.

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

geezerchess:

I personally prefer the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses, because it has returned the Divine Name, Jehovah, to the 7,000 plus places where it appeared in the original writings and it doesn't have Trinitarian lingo and other tactics that are found in Trinitarian Bible translations. But I also use other Bible versions during debate with others.

That said, feel free to use whichever Bible version suits you. Just make sure you pay attention to the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters), because the context will help you see through the attempts by Trinitarian Bible translators to twist scripture.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

BGnight:

I am not a Protestant, so why are you telling me all this?

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

BGnight:

Of course there is. The term "Judeo-Christian" is a direct reference to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures when they are combined into the Bible. Look the term up on the Internet and educate yourself before you start posting nonsense.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

As Craig has explained here before, I think citing CS Lewis, Jesus cannot be a 'solid dude'. He was either a madman, fraud, or what he said he was. We aren't left the choice of good guy.

In assessing the massively unsound nature of this Lewis trichotomy, one need merely apply normal rules. Lewis is just making up limited categories, insisting it must be one, and trying to smuggle in bias for the God option.

Why, he could just be an illegitimate child itinerant preacher who writers made up Paul Bunyan type stories about. And the fatherless child becomes the inspiration for a "perfect heavenly father" religion that catches wind behind its sails with a generally abandonment issue population (not to mention magic claim vulnerable, superstition-believing population).

He could be a fictional character, even a historical fiction type of messiah character ... a very common theme of that era and milieu.

In fact we don't even know what he said about himself, if anything, but have only stories written decades later. Isn't it odd that god almighty appeared in the flesh working wondrous miracles, and was hardly written about but by adherents of the religion, wrote nothing himself because of evident illiteracy.

You don't get to quote the story to prove the story is true. If you could, Harry Potter is true, and he played quidditch with 500 people watching. Note the 500 witnesses in this Potter scene are comparable to the 500 witnesses in other tales. It does not add verification; rather, it is part of the plot of a story.

Lewis was kind of forced into being a believer, some would say converted, and he did a pretty good job with this device, this trichotomy of what Jesus must be. It didn't need to be sound; it needed to bring emotional bias for the belief, especially among the non-skeptical, the easily duped.