Quote:
Originally posted by Superman
And to illustrate, some folks apparently find ways to conclude that Jesus was a great man and profound, wise religious philosopher who rational and sensible and who claimed to be the Son of God, but was not.
Huh? Make sense of that for me if you would please, Kang.
|
I don’t understand your question. I thought I explained that. I gave two explanations. One explanation is that his claims to be the son of god were misunderstood. By this I mean he meant a more casual relationship, like the father/coach analogy, but it was taken literally, like a real father/son. The second was that what he said when he was alive and what got written down some decades later are two different things. In other words, when he was alive, his relationship with god was correctly understood. They understood he did not mean a literal father/son relationship. But some decades later, it mistakenly got written down as literal father and son.
There are probably other explanations as well. What is it about these two logical explanations that you do not understand? You might not believe them, but do you understand the argument?
In my mind, both of these explanations are far more reasonable than some guy being the literal son of god. That just doesn’t make sense. The almighty god can have only one son? What’s up with that? Jesus died for us? But wait, he’s not dead, he’s alive. “God gave is son…” But wait, god has his son. And the miracles in the bible are so full of reasonable doubt that taking them literally is absurd. The virgin birth? Come on, we know what happened there. The whole story is so illogical it boggles my mind. How can someone possibly be accurately quoted decades after the fact? That doesn’t happen today, let alone 2,000 years ago. All of this, in my mind, makes the more reasonable, logical alternatives the obvious truth.