God's Truth
New member
men, like me, pray to the Most High. Jesus, according to you, was not like me, He was the Most High.
so again, same question. why would the Most High need to pray to Himself?
Because God the most High came as a man.
men, like me, pray to the Most High. Jesus, according to you, was not like me, He was the Most High.
so again, same question. why would the Most High need to pray to Himself?
Do you believe Jesus' followers are called Christians?
exactly, prayer is between man and the Most High, not between man and man, Jesus, according to doctrine, is the Most High. so again, why would the Most High need to pray to Himself?
that would be two different individuals communicating with one another. if Jesus is the Most High, then you dont have two different individuals, you have one individual communicating with Himself. its like saying Jesus or the Father doesnt have control over His own mind.
Do you believe it?
Just a historical/scholarly consideration of the terms 'Chrestos' and 'Christos' -
I would say the original Jewish followers of Jesus were not called 'Christians' until that became a later name given when disciples of Jesus (so called) were recognized as 'Christians' in Antioch.(per Acts recording). There are earlier non-biblical accounts however of early followers of a person named 'Chrestos'(Chrestus), and his followers as 'Chrestians'; 'Chrestos' meaning the 'good', 'righteous' or 'useful' ones. (other teachers, prophets, wise men, initiates were given this title). 'Chirst' or 'christian' on the other hands means 'Anointed' or 'anointed one'. This may indicate that either Jesus or another like him had attained this 'title' and was similar to, or another faction related to the so called 'Christians' (later designated), or that the names were 'confused', one being a rendering of the other.
From the early accounts of both Tacitus and Suetonius about 'Chrestus'....it could be that their accounting may not refer to the historical Jesus but another figure, so these accounts do not necessarily count as evidence for a historical or biblical 'Jesus', this on the grounds of a more objective skeptical secular observation.
The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity
Besides the brief note of some historical/scholarly study on the words 'Chrestian' or 'Christian', sure traditionally followers of Jesus are called 'Christians'. Given that my own experience of so called 'christians' has not been all that attractive, I have no great enthusaism to be enamored over the 'title', but if I am a disciple of Christ,...that may be a more noble appellation. Or heck,...maybe one could be just as well called himself a 'Chrestian',...meaning 'good', 'righteous', 'useful'. One could use this title, just as well, whether or not it refers to the Jesus represented in the gospels or not.
On a deeper metaphysical level, the 'Christ' of 'God' is that light, divinity, anointing within every soul....and all souls aspiring to do 'good', be 'righteous' and 'useful' in service to life, could be called 'chrestians' or 'christians'. Devotees of Jesus or some 'Christ' figure of those times were also called followers of the Way, Nazaroeans, Ebionites, Essenes, Gnostics, Therapeutae , etc.
How about you, are you Jesus' follower?
Yes, but I'm also continuing research into Jesus, and this includes all views, historicity, records, nuances, etc about this personality. This includes scholarship bringing into question whether this person even really existed! - yes...this may sound far fetched, but a mythicist view of Jesus is becoming more a possibility within Academia, as a mythological character that later got historicized in the gospel narratives. Asides from questioning the historical Jesus and whether or not we can prove he existed, all we have are the sayings ascribed to him. SURE,...we can gobble up Jesus sayings all day and put the good teachings into practice,...if they are good, and some do have true ethical/moral value, even some wisdom here and there,...its our practice of the teachings and their inward value and results that matters. - thats what counts at the end of the day.
if Jesus was the Most High who was He praying to?
Because God the most High came as a man.
Yes, but I'm also continuing research into Jesus, and this includes all views, historicity, records, nuances, etc about this personality. This includes scholarship bringing into question whether this person even really existed! - yes...this may sound far fetched, but a mythicist view of Jesus is becoming more a possibility within Academia, as a mythological character that later got historicized in the gospel narratives. Asides from questioning the historical Jesus and whether or not we can prove he existed, all we have are the sayings ascribed to him. SURE,...we can gobble up Jesus sayings all day and put the good teachings into practice,...if they are good, and some do have true ethical/moral value, even some wisdom here and there,...its our practice of the teachings and their inward value and results that matters. - thats what counts at the end of the day.
when He came as a man did He cease existing as the Most High?
There are three. When God came as a Son of man, He was also invisible in heaven in unapproachable light.
Good question, if sincere. Read John 1:1 Same question "was with God" AND "was God"?
when He came as a man did He cease existing as the Most High?
Do you follow anyone else beside Jesus?
Jesus was called Immanuel...God with us1 His Father being the Holy Spirit/His mother of course, Mary...human. Hence the term Godman. Romans 1 points to the dual nature of Jesus:
Romans 1:1-4:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Christ's life on earth was a step of humiliation which He willingly took upon Himself...
Philippians 2:6-11:
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped;
7
but made himself nothing
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Hebrews explains Christ's superiority to all the angels and Moses.
Yet this does not necessitate Jesus being 'God Almighty' for these 'divine Christ' or 'Celestial Jesus' models of Jesus show his 'divinity' yes,...so Jesus would do just as well as being a 'deity' (lower case) or 'archangel' of some kind (always subordinate to God), begotten or created by God (Jesus was both as a 'son'), and this would not in any way take anything away from our veneration of Jesus or his power to save, enlighten or liberate, thru his life, service and example to us.
My community college "History of Western Civilization" textbook records the life of Jesus....just for starts!
The methodology of historic probability and the means by which we determine such are being revisited and re-challenged by scholars such as Richard Carrier, Ralph Lataster, etc. as touched upon here. While the 'Mythicist' view of Christ is a fringe view, it is becoming more accepted and tenable as a possible view of the Jesus story,...namely that a mythological or celestial Jesus as spoke of in Paul's gospel was later historicized, and made into a human character with its own story and legendary as depicted in the gospels, which are regarded as being at least partially religious fiction and literary devices having allegorical significance.
I will be doing a review on Lataster's boook when I finish it. Bart Erhman's books are good too, however his latest book on the historicity of Jesus have been contested by some, which shows the fact that historicity of Jesus attested to by accounts outside of the bible itself, particular in the 1st century is pretty sparse.
Heaven forbid anyone attempt to prove I lived, outside my family, cuz I'm certain I will not have been cited in anyone's book outside that sphere! Ha!
The Bible is miraculous and is accepted as such by those in the faith. They testify of Christ and no human book is going to supercede or trump the credentials of the Scriptures!
Most professionals are trying very hard to make a name for themselves...word of caution.