I always thought it was weird when people think of Jesus as a literal God.
The trinity. The father the son and the holy ghost. AKA Dissociative identity disorder
True, it’s just a little too magical for my brain to process. To me he was a prophet and probably a good dude… but that’s probably about it.
To worship a guy as a literal God because his mom had a tale to tell about why she was pregnant, was the beginning of the end of religion making sense for me.
To me he was a prophet and probably a good dude… but that’s probably about it.
And you have stumbled upon the big difference between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Jews already had a list of criteria for the messiah. Jesus didn’t check all of the boxes, so the Jews went “he’s not our messiah. We’ll keep waiting for the real one to show up.”
Christians believe he is the messiah; Literally God given flesh, so He can experience mortality and die for their sins.
Then the Muslims believe he was a prophet, but not the last prophet. They believe the last prophet was Muhammad. Jesus is featured pretty heavily in the Quran, because they do believe he was a prophet. But Muhammad said there would be no more prophets after himself, so anyone new claiming to be one is lying. (Worth noting that this “no new prophets” thing doesn’t negate Jesus’ second coming. Because Jesus wouldn’t be a new prophet, he would be a returning prophet.)
if he existed, he sounds like he was cool.
show me some real historical documents suggesting he did, tho.
That’s not the only reason. Jesus claimed to be God, His followers worshipped Him, He performed miracles and ultimately died and rose again and was seen by many. Then ascended into heaven like a month later.
Literally is, at least according to trinitarian doctrine. Handy diagram:
Which of course implies that “isness” is non-transitive which mathematically speaking is bonkers. I mean it’s not that you can’t have intransitive relations but calling them equivalences is going to raise eyebrows.
“Isness” definitely doesn’t need to be transitive.
It can be used to give properties to a subject. An apple is crisp, red, and 100g. Crisp isn’t red, red isn’t 100g, and 100g isn’t crisp.
It can also be used to specify a general case. Honeycrisp is an apple. Golden Delicious is an apple. Fuji is an apple. All three of Honeycrisp, Fuji and Golden Delicious are distinct.
An apple is crisp, red, and 100g. Crisp isn’t red, red isn’t 100g, and 100g isn’t crisp.
True, but then crisp isn’t apple, red isn’t apple, and 100g isn’t apple: All your examples have the property that if x is y, then y isn’t x, which means it’s an asymmetric relation, while in the trinity there’s symmetry: The father is god, god is the father.
Honeycrisp is an apple. Golden Delicious is an apple. Fuji is an apple
We can go further and say that apples are fruit, and that Honeycrisp are fruit. That is transitive.
What you’re describing is a strict partial order, which is not an equivalence, but the whole thing being some sort of equivalence is kinda important if Trinitarians want to be monotheists. Equivalences need to be reflexive, symmetric and transitive, at least if you ask mathematicians.
It is just one uppmanship. He didn’t start out being thought that way but people kept adding. Whole process took over two centuries
Some Gnostics went pretty quickly down the road of “he’s the real god, here to expose the demiurge (Yahweh, formerly known as Ba’al, according to them… But not according to Canaanite religion)”
Supposedly. I think a lot of scholars are in the process of reexamining what the Gnostics actually believed.
