Jesus

I am not going to try to prove Jesus is the son of God because in three hundred years I couldn't prove to you let alone three rounds. You don't want to believe it. So instead I will show you were your reasoning is misguided. I am Catholic and so I do recognize your faith as a member of the Jewish religion as the beginning of mine. Just to show I do respect you and your beliefs. If we were forced to become something other than Catholic I would without hesitation learn the Jewish faith. I am using my bible "Good News Bible" Catholic Study Edition (different than Protestant bibles) 1)The bible was not made to be used as a tool to spread religion. It is a guide to life and how to live. It is merely a bunch of stories wrote out to compare your life too. That is it. Technically the child books that tell you to be good are the same thing except their writers are a lot less important. 2)Luke 1:33 "and he will be the king of the descendants of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." And this is were the bible being used as a source gets a little funky. If you have never read the bible in context in its original language then we can only guess what this sentence really means. It could mean your hypothesis that the Jews would know of him as their King and he will rule that way forever, but since Luke is accepted to been written between 62-70 AD ( http://www.beginningcatholic.com... ) Then we can assume he already knew that wasn't true and by saying the descendants of Jacob he could have meant the Catholic church being a descendant of the Jewish religion. 3)Matthew 1:17 "So then there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David and fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon and fourteen from then to the birth of the Messiah" Problem with this time period is who's calendar are you going off? We don't know exactly who wrote these books so we don't know which calendar they were using. If one was using Caesar calendar and the other was using an astronomically correct calendar they could have been greatly off. It is hard to use exact numbers like that in these times because standards weren't accepted by all like now. Just as the old testament said the 7th day he rested. He could still be resting this could still be the 7th day we have no idea what 7 days are to them. Heck it could have been the 4th day cause earth is slowing down or even still be going on because he was using the days in context to how God sees them. 4)In all three of these: Mathew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20 Jesus was heading to Galilee the problem is in the confusion of were he encounters people because by reading it in English it seems as if he made his showing multiple times but without reading it in its original language I can not tell you if it had other meaning like he just ran into them and was going to show everyone that he rose or what was meant by it. So I believe this one should be ruled out because we can't read it for what it is. He could have just happened upon them and then they followed to Galilee or it could be human error (it was written by humans ) or it could just be wrong. 5)"The reason to assume it is not meant literally is based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" This was said to the entire Jewish nation obviously figurative, so to in the case of Jesus it is probably meant figurative. Not only that but Jesus was a Jew so when the new testament says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god." Here arises two problems. #1 In this verse if read as is it is speaking of God using Lord as another name. In the Christian religion God the father, Jesus the Son, and the holy spirit are one. So calling Jesus the lord, God, the almighty, or he who is everlasting are all correct. #2 You could be right he could mean Jesus is the son of God, which would be true because he was made by God but he is also part of God. I am not saying he is I am just saying that makes that part of your argument invalid. Yet, either way I don't see were this part of your argument is valid because either way he could still be part of God. "Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:"-meaning Human "Matthew, Chapter 1:"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."- I do agree he was born of a Human. Mary "It is also interesting to note that in 1:18 it says the Holy Ghost and not simply "the lord" or "god".""- the holy ghost is God "In Luke as well 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" ... "thee shall be called the Son of God""- because he is a Human child born of God therefore he is Human(son of man) and God (son of God) "It is interesting to note that it says "he shall be called", indicating that he wasn't literally son of god."- I don't read anywhere that it says he shall be called but assuming your source is valid then unless you read it in Aramaic you are nitpicking words that cannot be directly translated. The bible is less than 50% accurately translated. That is why the Catholic church doesn't like (not against) people interpreting the English bible. Heck, we hardly read it because it has too many words that are just not in the English language. So no more nitpicking words. "Luke 3:23 ...being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... indicates he had a human father. That chapter ends with, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was not literally the son of god." I can not nitpick but I will point out that in the Bible right before were you started quoting it says so people THOUGHT. Since I can not nitpick I will say that more than likely it was saying he was the son of Joseph meaning his stepfather and the one who raised him. Many people have people that are not their parents that they call mom and dad. My cousin calls me her brother. It is a form of speech but either way we are nitpicking a translated version. "Lastly in the new testament Jesus is referred to as "son of man"."- the new testament is large...where did it say this? Where does it say Jesus is the son of man. "On the basis of all this it would seem to me that when it says son of god it is not literal, but rather as in the verse in Deuteronomy 14:1"- As I said earlier either your interpretation or the Christian interpretation would be correct in saying Jesus is God, manifested in flesh Please don't make this a personal thing!:) Good day. I will also say that I do not speak any languages other than English and some Latin and Some Spanish not enough to even be slightly into translating so I can't speak of your knowledge of other languages.