Who is the father of Jesus?

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 12:20pm #1

I was wondering about this recently.

If it was the Holy Spirit who came down and impregnated Mary, does that not make the Holy spirit Jesus' father, and not God?

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 12:22pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I was wondering about this recently.

If it was the Holy Spirit who came down and impregnated Mary, does that not make the Holy spirit Jesus' father, and not God?

The Holy Spirit is God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 12:28pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The Holy Spirit is God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

So, Jesus is God also, and not the son of God?

prinz · 20-12-2010 12:34pm

*Paging Jeremy Kyle to the Christianity forum*

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In one. You could argue that Jesus was His own father. Think about that one for a while :pac:

Important to remember that God, in all forms, exists outside of time so our thinking of who is who's father chronologically speaking is never quite going to explain it.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 12:40pm

So, any references in the Gospels from Jesus about his father, were actually about himself?

prinz · 20-12-2010 12:43pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So, any references in the Gospels from Jesus about his father, were actually about himself?

Jesus was trying to explain it as best he could. Two millennia on and we're still not that much closer to understanding it fully, as there's plenty of debate about the whole thing.

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 12:45pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So, Jesus is God also, and not the son of God?

Are you aware of the Christian concept of the trinity?

If not have a read of the Wikipedia page, it should explain it pretty well.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 12:53pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you aware of the Christian concept of the trinity?

If not have a read of the Wikipedia page, it should explain it pretty well.

I had a look there. It says it was a concept invented by later Christians and that there's no specific mention of it in the Bible.

It doesn't exactly help clear matters up.

prinz · 20-12-2010 12:57pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I had a look there. It says it was a concept invented by later Christians and that there's no specific mention of it in the Bible. It doesn't exactly help clear matters up.

Not exactly. Different people have different interpretations of what it might mean, usually, the Trinity is three forms of one being, or that the Trinity is three beings with the one object or purpose. All three forms are referenced many times in the Bible...

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 12:58pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I had a look there. It says it was a concept invented by later Christians and that there's no specific mention of it in the Bible.

It doesn't exactly help clear matters up.

That isn't quite what it says. The Trinity is an interpretation of what Jesus said about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Jesus repeatably referred to himself as God. He also speaks of his Father, and of the Holy Spirit, as God. The Trinity is the most common interpretation of what he meant.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:05pm

So, in essence, God sent a part of himself to give birth to another part of himself?

prinz · 20-12-2010 1:20pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So, in essence, God sent a part of himself to give birth to another part of himself?

Or you could say he gave birth to part of himself, so he'd have to send part of himself.

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 1:23pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So, in essence, God sent a part of himself to give birth to another part of himself?

Yes, the Bible states in a number of places that The Father sent the Son be born as a man.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:25pm

prinz wrote: »

Or you could say he gave birth to part of himself, so he'd have to send part of himself.

So, I should ignore all references to Jesus as the Son of God, Matthew 26:63-64, for example?

prinz · 20-12-2010 1:28pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So, I should ignore all references to Jesus as the Son of God, Matthew 26:63-64, for example?

Did I say that? If you read back through my posts on this thread you'll see what I actually meant.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:31pm

prinz wrote: »

Did I say that? If you read back through my posts on this thread you'll see what I actually meant.

You told me Jesus isn't the son of God, so I'm asking if I should ignore Jesus when he claims to be the son of God?

prinz · 20-12-2010 1:35pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

You told me Jesus isn't the son of God, so I'm asking if I should ignore Jesus when he claims to be the son of God?

No I didn't....and if you bothered to go back through my posts on this thread as suggested I pointed out that Jesus tried to explain the set-up in terms as simple as possible for humanity to understand, Father-son, being the most obvious. I also explained the God is outside of our understanding of time, hence the tongue-in-cheek reference to doing things backwards.

Edit: Side note as you are fond of Matthew 5, check out what Jesus calls the peacekeepers...

newmug · 20-12-2010 1:39pm

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

This is what I was always thought - Jesus is the METAPHORICAL son of God! We are all METAPHORICAL children of God, and therefore METAPHORICAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS of Jesus.

To ask who is the maternal genetic contributer to the flesh-and-blood version of God (jesus), the answer is that the Holy Spirit is. He performed a miracle and Mary conceiced without having sex. Hence why she'd referred to as the "Virgin" Mary.

Ultimately, there is one God. When he decided to incarnate himself as a human, he became Jesus, and when he decides to float around doing random acts of goodness, he is the Holy Spirit. When He's just chilling, watching telly, or basking in the worship of his followers in heaven, he's who's referred to as God "The Father".

It really p!sses me off when shows like Family Guy show two different characters, Jesus and The Father, making out that Jesus is not actually God.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:41pm

prinz wrote: »

No I didn't....and if you bothered to go back through my posts on this thread as suggested I pointed out that Jesus tried to explain the set-up in terms as simple as possible for humanity to understand, Father-son, being the most obvious. I also explained the God is outside of our understanding of time, hence the tongue-in-cheek reference to doing things backwards.

You said God gave birth to himself, in post 12. So when Jesus claims to be the son of God, even if he only put it that way as the simplest explanation for humanity as you put it, you're claiming that's not the actual story. It's merely a metaphor, right?

Fanny Cradock · 20-12-2010 1:46pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

You told me Jesus isn't the son of God, so I'm asking if I should ignore Jesus when he claims to be the son of God?

Nobody is saying that. Christians believe that God (that is to say God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are eternal and uncreated. Jesus wasn't suddenly created when he was conceived; he always existed. Read the link on the Trinity. It is central to an orthodox understanding of Christianity.

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 1:47pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

You said God gave birth to himself, in post 12. So when Jesus claims to be the son of God, even if he only put it that way as the simplest explanation for humanity as you put it, you're claiming that's not the actual story. It's merely a metaphor, right?

The Son existed before Jesus. Jesus is the son in human form. The Father sent the Son to be born and die as a man. The Son was not created when Jesus was born, he always existed.

Seriously, did you read the Wikipedia article at all?

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:47pm

newmug wrote: »

To ask who is the maternal genetic contributer to the flesh-and-blood version of God (jesus), the answer is that the Holy Spirit is. He performed a miracle and Mary conceiced without having sex. Hence why she'd referred to as the "Virgin" Mary.

Well, that's exactly what I thought. The Holy Ghost seems to have played the role of incubus.

Fanny Cradock · 20-12-2010 1:48pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously, did you read the Wikipedia article at all?

I'm not sure knowledge is sought in this case.

prinz · 20-12-2010 1:48pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

You said God gave birth to himself, in post 12. So when Jesus claims to be the son of God, even if he only put it that way as the simplest explanation for humanity as you put it, you're claiming that's not the actual story. It's merely a metaphor, right?

Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are three manifestations of the one godhead. Jesus was a 'son' certainly as far as His human incarnation is concerned. Jesus was not a son in the sense of a conventional human father-son relationship or time line.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. Christians believe that God (that is to say God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are eternal and uncreated. Jesus wasn't suddenly created when he was conceived; he always existed. Read the link on the Trinity. It is central to an orthodox understanding of Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

The Son existed before Jesus. Jesus is the son in human form. The Father sent the Son to be born and die as a man. The Son was not created when Jesus was born, he always existed.

Seriously, did you read the Wikipedia article at all?

So, the Son was always about?

Are there earlier references to him in the Bible?

Fanny Cradock · 20-12-2010 1:51pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So, the Son was always about?

Are there earlier references to him in the Bible?

Read the article that Wicknight provided. It is quite comprehensive as an introduction.

Plowman · 20-12-2010 1:52pm

This post has been deleted.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:54pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Read the article that Wicknight provided. It is quite comprehensive as an introduction.

I have, and the only references to the Son appear to be in the New Testament.

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 1:55pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I have, and the only references to the Son appear to be in the New Testament.

And? Are you Jewish?

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 1:57pm

Wicknight wrote: »

And? Are you Jewish?

You said, in your post, 'the Son existed before Jesus', so I was just asking if there were any references to this in the bible.

prinz · 20-12-2010 2:01pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I have, and the only references to the Son appear to be in the New Testament.

There are hundreds of references/prophecies of Jesus and the Messianic coming...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+9%3A6&version=NIV

A son will be given.....called Everlasting Father?

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 2:02pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

You said, in your post, 'the Son existed before Jesus', so I was just asking if there were any references to this in the bible.

Which you already know the answer to, you just gave it to me.

I have, and the only references to the Son appear to be in the New Testament.

and I'm asking why that is an issue for you, that these references are "only" in the New Testament. Are you Jewish?

ballsymchugh · 20-12-2010 2:05pm

obvious troll is so bloody obvious!

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 2:06pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Which you already know the answer to, you just gave it to me.

I have, and the only references to the Son appear to be in the New Testament.

and I'm asking why that is an issue for you, that these references are "only" in the New Testament. Are you Jewish?

Who said it was an issue?

You, and FC, said the Son always existed, I merely asked if there were any references to this.

What does Jewishness have to do with anything?

Fanny Cradock · 20-12-2010 2:08pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I have, and the only references to the Son appear to be in the New Testament.

Yes, the concept of the Trinity - that Jesus was one part of the Triune nature of God - is a Christian concept. Christians believe that the whole point of the Old Testament (which is not so much a list of rules as it is a recording of God's interactions with his people) is that it pointed towards Christ . This wasn't revealed in a complete fashion (here is a book telling you exactly how it's going to be). Rather, it was done over many generations and in terms of gradual understanding - revelation if you will.

gbee · 20-12-2010 2:08pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I was wondering about this recently.

If it was the Holy Spirit who came down and impregnated Mary, does that not make the Holy spirit Jesus' father, and not God?

In the non Christian world these events are usually considered artificial insemination events.

In alien abduction events women describe being probed and inseminated without sex.

it's not an unusual theme in the ancient and modern world.

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 2:14pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

Who said it was an issue?

You did, with the use of "only" in the sentence, as if this was some how lacking.

AntiMatter wrote: »

You, and FC, said the Son always existed, I merely asked if there were any references to this.

There are, as you me and FC has already said. When presented with that you said they were "only" in the New Testament.

AntiMatter wrote: »

What does Jewishness have to do with anything?

Jews reject the New Testament as having validity. I'm wondering why you seem unsatisfied with references to the New Testament.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 2:18pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You did, with the use of "only" in the sentence, as if this was some how lacking.

There are, as you me and FC has already said. When presented with that you said they were "only" in the New Testament.

I asked for references, FC told me to read the wiki article, and the only references I could find are in the New Testament.

What's so strange about me asking if there are any earlier references?

Jews reject the New Testament as having validity. I'm wondering why you seem unsatisfied with references to the New Testament.

I can assure you, despite my being circumcised, I'm not Jewish.

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 2:24pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I asked for references, FC told me to read the wiki article, and the only references I could find are in the New Testament.

What's so strange about me asking if there are any earlier references?

Nothing. What is wrong with the earlier references in the New Testament? There are many places in the New Testament that refer to God the Son existing before Jesus' birth. Is that not early enough?

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 2:28pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Nothing. What is wrong with the earlier references in the New Testament?

It just makes the concept of the Holy Trinity seem a little shallow, to me, if, despite his eternal existence, there are no previous references to the Son.

Edit; you edited. Can you point me to these references, please?

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 2:31pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

It just makes the concept of the Holy Trinity seem a little shallow, to me, if, despite his eternal existence, there are no previous references to the Son.

Then don't be a Christian.

Fanny Cradock · 20-12-2010 2:32pm

AntiMatter, people have patient with you, but it seems you are impervious any attempts at dialogue. Unless you have an astounding point beyond "I'm not a Christian and I don't find the Trinity to be convincing" then I'm locking this.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 2:33pm

So no references then?

Zombrex · 20-12-2010 2:36pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

So no references then?

The references are (as you yourself have already said) in the Wikipedia you have apparently already read.

AntiMatter · 20-12-2010 2:40pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The references are (as you yourself have already said) in the Wikipedia you have apparently already read.

I can find none to underwrite the claims in this thread of the Son having existed before the birth of Jesus.

Fanny Cradock · 20-12-2010 2:41pm

AntiMatter wrote: »

I can find none to underwrite the claims in this thread of the Son having existed before the birth of Jesus.

Fine. But let's not pretend that you were ever looking.

Assuming you ever come back to this question with genuine interest (as oppose to the pretence that is on display here), you might findthis talk by Tom Wright interesting. It relates to my earlier post (35).

Who is the father of Jesus?

Comments