Jesus had 2 dads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not going to be popular. But, perhaps take a look at the ancient pagan use of the word “son”. And “son/sun of god”.

Jesus had one earthly father, presumably Joseph. He impregnated Mary. Jesus is very much the son of God. The Bible actually calls us all “sons and daughters of God”. Jesus even said “This you can do and more”. Accepting that he was fully human does not detract from his divinity. He was certainly chosen by God. He was a healer. A life-changer. A miracle worker. The messiah. But, he was fully human. His death and resurrection, like his birth are metaphysical concepts. Not literal.

What? Those terms (human and divine), as I understand them, are mutually exclusive. You're going to have to explain that claim. What about the prophets who were chosen by God" to use your words - were they divine? How about Mohammed. Was he he divine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not going to be popular. But, perhaps take a look at the ancient pagan use of the word “son”. And “son/sun of god”.

Jesus had one earthly father, presumably Joseph. He impregnated Mary. Jesus is very much the son of God. The Bible actually calls us all “sons and daughters of God”. Jesus even said “This you can do and more”. Accepting that he was fully human does not detract from his divinity. He was certainly chosen by God. He was a healer. A life-changer. A miracle worker. The messiah. But, he was fully human. His death and resurrection, like his birth are metaphysical concepts. Not literal.

What? Those terms (human and divine), as I understand them, are mutually exclusive. You're going to have to explain that claim. What about the prophets who were chosen by God" to use your words - were they divine? How about Mohammed. Was he he divine?

You, my friend, are divine in every way. Christ was chosen as the way-shower. He is certainly more enlightened than any human I know of. But he was fully human. Had he not been, his death would have been meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not going to be popular. But, perhaps take a look at the ancient pagan use of the word “son”. And “son/sun of god”.

Jesus had one earthly father, presumably Joseph. He impregnated Mary. Jesus is very much the son of God. The Bible actually calls us all “sons and daughters of God”. Jesus even said “This you can do and more”. Accepting that he was fully human does not detract from his divinity. He was certainly chosen by God. He was a healer. A life-changer. A miracle worker. The messiah. But, he was fully human. His death and resurrection, like his birth are metaphysical concepts. Not literal.

What? Those terms (human and divine), as I understand them, are mutually exclusive. You're going to have to explain that claim. What about the prophets who were chosen by God" to use your words - were they divine? How about Mohammed. Was he he divine?

You, my friend, are divine in every way. Christ was chosen as the way-shower. He is certainly more enlightened than any human I know of. But he was fully human. Had he not been, his death would have been meaningless.

you need to define the term "divine" then, because you're using it wrong. Neither I or you or any human is divine in the religious sense.

[Anonymous]

divine adjective

di·​vine | \ də-ˈvīn \
diviner; divinest
Definition of divine (Entry 1 of 3)
1 religion
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God (see GOD entry 1 sense 1) or a god (see GOD entry 1 sense 2)
divine inspiration
divine love
praying for divine intervention
b : being a deity
the divine Savior
a divine ruler
c : directed to a deity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not going to be popular. But, perhaps take a look at the ancient pagan use of the word “son”. And “son/sun of god”.

Jesus had one earthly father, presumably Joseph. He impregnated Mary. Jesus is very much the son of God. The Bible actually calls us all “sons and daughters of God”. Jesus even said “This you can do and more”. Accepting that he was fully human does not detract from his divinity. He was certainly chosen by God. He was a healer. A life-changer. A miracle worker. The messiah. But, he was fully human. His death and resurrection, like his birth are metaphysical concepts. Not literal.

What? Those terms (human and divine), as I understand them, are mutually exclusive. You're going to have to explain that claim. What about the prophets who were chosen by God" to use your words - were they divine? How about Mohammed. Was he he divine?

You, my friend, are divine in every way. Christ was chosen as the way-shower. He is certainly more enlightened than any human I know of. But he was fully human. Had he not been, his death would have been meaningless.

you need to define the term "divine" then, because you're using it wrong. Neither I or you or any human is divine in the religious sense.

You can be no less. You were divinely created.

[Anonymous]

Christians believe Jesus is God.
Other religions, like Islam, see Jesus as a fully human prophet, which seems to be your mindset, PP.

[Anonymous]

Joseph was from the house of David, had the correct lineage to have a royal descendant.
The records after fall of Jerusalem in ad 70 were destroyed, so there is no way for the Jewish messiah to come

Jesus is occasionally referred to as the son of Mary, so Joseph most likely died when he was young

Holy spirit is not Jesus' father, in the trinity he is equal
The doctrine gets confusing, but not as outrageous as the Jewish belief that the Messiah is still to come. That is just not possible without the birth records dating to king David

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean he was killed in his 30s for inciting violence against the government but I guess for some value of fine…

No, it was for blasphemy. The Romans didn’t have an issue with him but they executed him to appease the locals. Also the Maccabean War was still a recent memory.

I don't think it was for blasphemy. It was for making trouble at the temple. See, e..g.:


Mark 11:15-19

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’ ”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

I think it is interesting that Mohammed was run out of Mecca for largely the same reason, upsetting the commercial interests with his views of religion.

The Romans were not concerned with quibbles at the temple, none of that mattered to them.

The Romans were, in fact, concerned with trouble makers. And Jesus was deemed a trouble maker obviously by those in the temple he upset.

Pilate was content to flog Jesus and send him on his way. Not sure which historical references you are using.

[Anonymous]

God is also non-binary.

It's the truth. Look it up.

This whole anti-gay thing is Waaaaay after Jesus and there's no easy that Jesus is accepting the prostitutes and the criminals but anti -gay. It makes no sense. They've twisted Jesus into a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean he was killed in his 30s for inciting violence against the government but I guess for some value of fine…

No, it was for blasphemy. The Romans didn’t have an issue with him but they executed him to appease the locals. Also the Maccabean War was still a recent memory.

I don't think it was for blasphemy. It was for making trouble at the temple. See, e..g.:


Mark 11:15-19

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’ ”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

I think it is interesting that Mohammed was run out of Mecca for largely the same reason, upsetting the commercial interests with his views of religion.

The Romans were not concerned with quibbles at the temple, none of that mattered to them.

The Romans were, in fact, concerned with trouble makers. And Jesus was deemed a trouble maker obviously by those in the temple he upset.

Pilate was content to flog Jesus and send him on his way. Not sure which historical references you are using.

Pilate initially was content to flog Jesus and send him away, but no criminal could be executed in Jerusalem except on his orders. He could have told the Sanhedrin "no", but he went along with their demands. Why? The Romans very much were concerned with "quibbles at the temple" as you put it -- if it led to disorder and civil discontent, which it would have if Pilate didn't order the execution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean he was killed in his 30s for inciting violence against the government but I guess for some value of fine…

No, it was for blasphemy. The Romans didn’t have an issue with him but they executed him to appease the locals. Also the Maccabean War was still a recent memory.

I don't think it was for blasphemy. It was for making trouble at the temple. See, e..g.:


Mark 11:15-19

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’ ”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

I think it is interesting that Mohammed was run out of Mecca for largely the same reason, upsetting the commercial interests with his views of religion.

The Romans were not concerned with quibbles at the temple, none of that mattered to them.

The Romans were, in fact, concerned with trouble makers. And Jesus was deemed a trouble maker obviously by those in the temple he upset.

Pilate was content to flog Jesus and send him on his way. Not sure which historical references you are using.

Pilate initially was content to flog Jesus and send him away, but no criminal could be executed in Jerusalem except on his orders. He could have told the Sanhedrin "no", but he went along with their demands. Why? The Romans very much were concerned with "quibbles at the temple" as you put it -- if it led to disorder and civil discontent, which it would have if Pilate didn't order the execution.

Not sure why you are arguing this point when the biblical text is clear- the Jewish leaders insisted on Jesus’ death and Pilate was worried that the mob was going to spiral out of control over it. The Romans themselves had no interest in Jesus. In fact a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, indicating that the Romans were well aware of Jesus but were not the ones who plotted against him or arrested him. Pilate is clearly a somewhat passive/reactive character in the Biblical text. He has no intrinsic interest in Jesus and doesn’t see him as a threat.

[Anonymous]

God and Joseph?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean he was killed in his 30s for inciting violence against the government but I guess for some value of fine…

No, it was for blasphemy. The Romans didn’t have an issue with him but they executed him to appease the locals. Also the Maccabean War was still a recent memory.

I don't think it was for blasphemy. It was for making trouble at the temple. See, e..g.:


Mark 11:15-19

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’ ”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

I think it is interesting that Mohammed was run out of Mecca for largely the same reason, upsetting the commercial interests with his views of religion.

The Romans were not concerned with quibbles at the temple, none of that mattered to them.

The Romans were, in fact, concerned with trouble makers. And Jesus was deemed a trouble maker obviously by those in the temple he upset.

Pilate was content to flog Jesus and send him on his way. Not sure which historical references you are using.

Pilate initially was content to flog Jesus and send him away, but no criminal could be executed in Jerusalem except on his orders. He could have told the Sanhedrin "no", but he went along with their demands. Why? The Romans very much were concerned with "quibbles at the temple" as you put it -- if it led to disorder and civil discontent, which it would have if Pilate didn't order the execution.

Not sure why you are arguing this point when the biblical text is clear- the Jewish leaders insisted on Jesus’ death and Pilate was worried that the mob was going to spiral out of control over it. The Romans themselves had no interest in Jesus. In fact a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, indicating that the Romans were well aware of Jesus but were not the ones who plotted against him or arrested him. Pilate is clearly a somewhat passive/reactive character in the Biblical text. He has no intrinsic interest in Jesus and doesn’t see him as a threat.

We agree on the bolded. But Pilate did order Jesus's execution, and the Roman soldiers obviously mocked and derided him after he was condemned. They clothed him with a "purple" (Mark 15:17) or "scarlet" (Matthew 27:28) robe since purple was a royal color, put a crown of thorns on his head and said, "Hail, king of the Jews!" (Matthew 27:29). After this, they spat on him, and struck him on the head with the staff. That's some kind of different treatment for a common criminal in which they had no interest.

There was indeed one unnamed centurion who seems to have been very conflicted and probably felt guilty about the execution. He's the one who looked up at Jesus and said "Truly this was the son of God."

[Anonymous]

Jesus was his own Dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean he was killed in his 30s for inciting violence against the government but I guess for some value of fine…

No, it was for blasphemy. The Romans didn’t have an issue with him but they executed him to appease the locals. Also the Maccabean War was still a recent memory.

I don't think it was for blasphemy. It was for making trouble at the temple. See, e..g.:


Mark 11:15-19

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’ ”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

I think it is interesting that Mohammed was run out of Mecca for largely the same reason, upsetting the commercial interests with his views of religion.

The Romans were not concerned with quibbles at the temple, none of that mattered to them.

The Romans were, in fact, concerned with trouble makers. And Jesus was deemed a trouble maker obviously by those in the temple he upset.

Pilate was content to flog Jesus and send him on his way. Not sure which historical references you are using.

Pilate initially was content to flog Jesus and send him away, but no criminal could be executed in Jerusalem except on his orders. He could have told the Sanhedrin "no", but he went along with their demands. Why? The Romans very much were concerned with "quibbles at the temple" as you put it -- if it led to disorder and civil discontent, which it would have if Pilate didn't order the execution.

Not sure why you are arguing this point when the biblical text is clear- the Jewish leaders insisted on Jesus’ death and Pilate was worried that the mob was going to spiral out of control over it. The Romans themselves had no interest in Jesus. In fact a Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, indicating that the Romans were well aware of Jesus but were not the ones who plotted against him or arrested him. Pilate is clearly a somewhat passive/reactive character in the Biblical text. He has no intrinsic interest in Jesus and doesn’t see him as a threat.

We agree on the bolded. But Pilate did order Jesus's execution, and the Roman soldiers obviously mocked and derided him after he was condemned. They clothed him with a "purple" (Mark 15:17) or "scarlet" (Matthew 27:28) robe since purple was a royal color, put a crown of thorns on his head and said, "Hail, king of the Jews!" (Matthew 27:29). After this, they spat on him, and struck him on the head with the staff. That's some kind of different treatment for a common criminal in which they had no interest.

There was indeed one unnamed centurion who seems to have been very conflicted and probably felt guilty about the execution. He's the one who looked up at Jesus and said "Truly this was the son of God."

They were soldiers, being sadistic with a famous criminal, much as any jail guard might be a bit sadistic in dealing with a famous criminal. That’s not really proof of your point.