Evidence for God from Science

Forge wrote:No, no. Mastermind actually got me there. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. If one is crazy and believes one is Napolean, one may be crazy, but not necessarily a liar.

Right, that was what I meant with option "2".

Forge wrote:However, I think my point is still valid. As God is truth, falsehood would lead away, correct?

Naturally.

I've not read the book, but what's wrong with Jesus having a kid with Mary?

If they actually got arried legally, I don''t see how marriage & having children affect the salvation plan of God or the character of God in human form.

Can anyone enlighten?

I remember a friend of mine saying he wouldn't consider anything wrong if Jesus did hitch himself to a woman. However, I believe a conflict arises when looking at what Jesus' purpose was in coming. He came for everyone, and His life revolved around one central purpose—to pave a way for all to be reunited with God through His death and resurrection. To say He had a wife would be to take away from this purpose. For then the question comes up as to whether Christ also purposed to have a family? If He did, then He abandoned His wife when He died. If not, then He was simply satisfying His own sexual desires until His main purpose came. So if Christ is God who took on human nature, then Christ having a woman lowers God to our level, and who is to say He wouldn't have satisfied other humanly desires?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:So if Christ is God who took on human nature, then Christ having a woman lowers God to our level, and who is to say He wouldn't have satisfied other humanly desires?

Just a thought:
Didn't God, though Jesus, lower to our level?

But yeah, I agree with your post.

Although He came down to our level by taking on human nature, and humbled Himself throughout His life on Earth, it was only an adding a human nature. He did not empty Himself of His divinity, but rather being divine took up a human nature in addition to His divinity.

I suppose where I see a difference is that Jesus' purpose was always divine. If He took on some finite purpose that I see as only being relevant to humans, then I'd think why? Could He be "only" human afterall, and the things He speaks of in life hereafter, does He not even believe it if He seeks finite pleasures?

It also goes against the belief that Christ came to do His Father's will (John 4:34), if He instead chose to live out His own desires. As Christ says:

• 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

If Christ went about anything but His divine purpose, it appears from His words that He risked loosing some who could otherwise be saved. His love for each of us is too great to let go of by fulfilling any of His own earthly desires.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Although He came down to our level by taking on human nature, and humbled Himself throughout His life on Earth, it was only an adding a human nature. He did not empty Himself of His divinity, but rather being divine took up a human nature in addition to His divinity.

I don't think Jesus eliminated his divinity, either. However, as shown by his human attributes, I think he consciously limited his divine attributes.
Heh. That's why the Incarnation is called a mystery.

I suppose where I see a difference is that Jesus' purpose was always divine. If He took on some finite purpose that I see as only being relevant to humans, then I'd think why? Could He be "only" human afterall, and the things He speaks of in life hereafter, does He not even believe it if He seeks finite pleasures?

I think Jesus' purpose was human-divine in that he wished to cement the covenant between us and Him. I guess you're saying the same thing, but with different words

If God created the entire Universe, why would God in all of his infinite knowledge, ability and existence have a "need" to become a human being in order to better "understand" us, or to "bring us together"?

Wouldn't God already "know" how we feel, how we work, how we communicate, how we interact with each other without the need to become one of his own limited creations? After all, He did create us. He should know inherently how we work, how we think, and what we do.

OneFishRedFish wrote:If God created the entire Universe, why would God in all of his infinite knowledge, ability and existence have a "need" to become a human being in order to better "understand" us, or to "bring us together"?

Actually he became human so that WE can understand Him better.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

What if His marriage is not a result of him satisfying his fleshly desire, but as part of the plan to live out a holy life & marriage (in demo to all of us)?

The edge wrote:What if His marriage is not a result of him satisfying his fleshly desire, but as part of the plan to live out a holy life & marriage (in demo to all of us)?

It's not about whether He could have married and still lived without sin; instead it's about the truth of what actually happenned, as it's recorded in the Bible.

Interesting stuff...


I read The Da Vinci Code a long time ago so I forgot alot of the information... But to think that if it is true, that Jesus really did have a child, and the child had a child, and so on.. then there's a direct descendant of God walking the earth right now... pretty neat.