Turning Jesus into God

Who cares - the topic is the god of Abraham - not the Messiah .. way of page mate .. get with the program.

 

Abraham believed that God was the Messiah. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Truths/eternal_life_a_promise.htm

 

Nothing in what you posted even suggests of a messiah - never mind Abraham knowing about some Messiah named Jesus.

The folks that are feeding you this gibberish are disingenuous snakes - why on God's green earth would anyone use "Galatians" to understand what Abraham was thinking ? This is moronic for a number of reasons.

What is perhaps more nonsensical is that the quote from Galatians does not say anything about Abraham knowing some Messiah.

The one place in the OT where folks have claimed a messiah figure - stating "That was Jesus" was Melchizedek. .. Genesis 14. This was a Canaanite Priest King .. being both King and High Priest of a Canaanite City State known as Salem.

You see at this time .. Abraham and his kin got on very well with the Canaanites - many centuries prior to the Exodus.

The Patron God of this Canaanite city- was the same God as Abraham was Worshiping - and the King was a Priest of the Most High. https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen14.pdf

Here you might want to look to find out who Abraham's God was - but to your Messiah point .. some say that this king was Jesus.

 

The Old Testament foreshadows the Messiah. God gave us a multitude of pictures that foreshadow Jesus in the Old Testament.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/salvation_webpages/13-imputation.htm

 

It's what the Romans did to coopt this religion for political purposes.

 

The church had nothing to gain by teaching that Jesus was born of a virgin. https://reasonsforjesus.com/the-virgin-birth-of-jesus-did-the-church-make-this-up/

 

Sure it does ... but we are talking about the God of Abraham - not references to the Messiah in the OT.

Why is it that you are so desperate to avoid the fact that the God of Abraham was the "Most High" not just to Abraham but to most every city state in the Entire Near east .. and the name of that God was Enlil "El" "El Elyon" "El Supreme"

Since you mention the Messiah - this is also the God of the Messiah of the OT - Melchizedek - the "Righteous One" .. the "Prince of Peace" - the God of Jesus.

Not the upstart God YHWH ... who comes much later to the scene.

 

Not quite sure what you are referring to - and this does not really address the question of the OP - however, yes indeed the Romans -and every other nation at the time coopted religion for political purposes.

The Romans sometimes took things to the extreme - "Pontifex Maximus" - the Ceasar both King and High Priest .. God's messenger on Earth - Divine right and so on... In this respect the position of Jesus is usurped .. and it is interesting that the later "Universal Church" also usurps the position of Jesus - its leader declaring "Pontifex Maximus" .. this horrible anathema to Christ - the institution of which was "The Anti Christ" .. the "Awful Horror" / "Abomination of Desolation" which presided over the 1000 years of horror.

 

"The Church" indeed had something to gain by introducing the Virgin Birth - can you not figure out what it is .. ?

 

The church didn't focus on the virgin birth. They weren't trying to attract the Greeks and Romans with the idea of a person being God. Christians don't believe that Jesus was a mere man to be worshipped. We believe that Jesus is God incarnated. Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God incarnated. https://reasonsforjesus.com/the-virgin-birth-of-jesus-did-the-church-make-this-up/

 

Your Dodging - and for what reason I don't know - as this is all just speculation in any case .. what the Churches motives may or may not have been .. and what even is "The Church" around 70 AD .. and which sect did the author of Matt belong to . ? the fellow who introduced the Virgin Birth to the story.

Your claim - that there was - No possible benefit - is simply false. To the contrary there are plenty of examples of " The Church" engaging in "artistic license" adding or altering this and that to make the story better conform to the dogma of the day.

Do we say this about the author of Matt ? - this is a different question as just because one writer - or transcriber in one place - did something nefarious does not mean that this insertion was nefarious.

Strike 1 against Matt is that he did engage in a wee bit of Pious Fraud - Sin of Omission in this case .. using all of Mark as a source document sans but a few passages which he considered derogatory towards Jesus and/or the deciples.

I would not claim this author out on this basis alone though .. Matt is a tough one .. written just after the destruction of the temple round 70 AD .. The author takes Mark .. and adds to it ... where these additions came from we don't know .. - could it have been from some oral tradition or writings from the disciple Matt - it is unlikely but - can't rule it out.

The problem with the Virgin birth story is firstly that this is not only the questionable story added .. and by questionable I mean not found in Mark - but should be..

2 - striking things left out of the original story are 1) virgin birth 2) Physical resurrection stories -- 3) the lineage would be another but leave this for the moment.

And for this - we must give Strike 2 .. as it seems very implausible that Mark would leave out the virgin Birth - and near impossible that he would leave out the smoking gun - Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death - physical proof of the resurrection and resurrection promise .. for which we all yearn.

Paul knows naught of any "Physical Resurrection" - describing stories of the appearance of Jesus after death as akin to his vision - what is referred to as a "Spiritual Resurrection" - some folks see the virgin Mary in the clouds to this day.

Also problematic - is that the first "Pope" / leader of the Church round 95-100 AD - Clement - never has he heard of any physical resurrection .. despite discussing the resurrection at length.

so while this is not the virgin birth story .. it is problematic ..

One possibility is that there was an original Matt .. written around 70-90AD (I choose the earlier date for various reasons) but additions were made to it later .. such as putting in the physical resurrection story .. which gets longer with the telling in the later gospels of Luke and John.

John is written around 100-120 BC .. the church has changed dramatically - as have the believes in the divinity of Christ - so here would be a likely time for insertion into the text ..

call it 2.5 strikes .. reserving some hope on the basis of some divine spark entering the conceptus .. but other than that I think the story is mostly false.

The story of Jesus begins when he is a man of 30 ..at his baptism. In the story of Mark - it is at this point that Jesus is deified - after which he undergo's the specified and requisite ritual - the one that near always happens during the deification process - when a human is adopted by a Patron God - like Sargon.. who was put out into the water in a basket .. 1000 years prior to Moses -

In any case .. that is where the story starts .. The story ends with an empty tomb - the reader left wondering - if the resurrection promised by Jesus really happened .. Jesus is gone .. but there is much mystery.

The additions that come later are all suspect - and the further away you go the more suspect. I take most of Matt as likely true .. "sans the physical resurrection story" .. with the virgin birth and lineage a close second in the sans column.

 

The believers in the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of the Messiah.

 

Jesus was God incarnated, not the offspring of a god and a woman.

 

You have no clue the method by which Jesus was spawned .. nor do I - and to say otherwise would be self deception ..

but since I believe in the vacation theory - that the soul of Jesus was transplanted into a human egg .. is perfectly consistent with my belief in general .. of how things work ...

Key here is to recognize the difference between a personal belief . .and something that is 'defacto true'

 

The first Christians were Jewish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian

 

did someone tell you otherwise ? is your brain having trouble with the fact that the church founded by those Jewish Christians died out - and we have no trace of the Church of Jerusalem after Martyrdom of all the disciples round 60 AD - Paul is gone too - and certainly not after the fall of the Temple .. after which Jews became pariah's .. a special tax was put on them called the "Fuscus Judaicus.

The Church that carried forward was that of Paul - which had little relation to the Church of Jesus that the Disciples founded - a separate entity unto itself.

We retain a little of the old Church in Mark/Matt - the rest is Pauline ..

in the decades after the fall of the Temple - Christianity became very anti Jewish - as can be seen from the later and different Pauline Gospels Luke and John. .. and this was not a church of Jews .. but gentiles.. silly rabbit.

 

Christianity is not anti Jewish. Jesus and the apostles and the first Christians were Jewish. Christianity is the gentile expression of following the Messiah.

 

Christianity is not Anti Jewish these days ..but for the vast majority of its history it was massively anti Jewish.. ever since the Church of Jerusalem died out .and the Church of Paul took over ... up until the end of WW2 ..

 

I don't know what the church did, but that has nothing to do with God dying for his creation.