Did Jesus have a devilish or angelic personality?
370409
Now think about it! What do you think?
619157
I would say... Peter... and the reason why I find myself relating to him is because if you recall he was always zealuos and eager to do things... But in the time Jesus was taken by the Romans he was the first to deny him. But in the end he repented from his mistakes and still had faith that he would be forgiven for his sins...  I am the same way very zealous and eager to do good work...but at the same..time I fall victim to sin and realzie that I am not as great as I think I am..=)   But always stay faith full through it all..
110823
Yes! Totally! But I'm not Christian, I just think Jesus was a buddha or a boddhisattva. I would go through everything he went thought just to be that! The love, the wisdom, the compassion! The son of God. I wish I could spend eternity in that, or even a few years. That is worth everything. Yes, I would be Jesus!
1083666
Well-intentioned bible students might point to this Scripture and infer that Jesus' eyes are red. However, this Scripture refers to the man and tribe Judah, and not to Jesus specifically.\n(Genesis 49:10-12) The scepter will not turn aside from Judah... Dark red are his eyes from wine\n\nSince Jesus was a Semite, his eyes were almost certainly brown.
821836
Wow, this is a new topic and compared to what I have read so far today...a pleasant change.  Possibly so, since we are to believe we were all 'created' in the image of God.  Angels were first according to history and Satan, Lucifer was his favorite at one time.  I don't know what else to say, but I appreciate the question for the open minded people out in the world today...what if this is true?  Good one.
699086
Gabriel comes across as androgynous to me. Angels tend to do so. Same with Satan, since I connect that with Lucifer, and being and angel and all. God I tend to picture as genderless, because I don't picture God as a human.
670111
I believe Christ was truly God and truly man, so yes it is very possible that he had a carnal relationship. It does not bother me if it is proved he had a wife.
275537
He Accepted Divine Direction:\n\nSUPPOSE a perfect child was placed in your care and you were expected to rear him properly. What a challenge! How could any imperfect human do so? Only by accepting divine direction and applying it in everyday life.\n\nThat very thing was done by Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus. In contrast with detailed apocryphal lore about Joseph, the Bible says little concerning his humble role in Jesus’ early life. We know that Joseph and his wife, Mary, reared Jesus, four other sons, and daughters too.—Mark 6:3.\n\nJoseph was a descendant of Israel’s King David through the line of Solomon. He was the son of Jacob and the son-in-law of Heli. (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23) As a carpenter in the city of Nazareth in Galilee, Joseph had limited financial resources. (Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:4, 24; compare Leviticus 12:8.) But he was rich spiritually. (Proverbs 10:22) This certainly was because he accepted divine direction.\n\nWithout doubt, Joseph was a meek and humble Jew who had faith in God and desired to do what was right. The few incidents of his life recorded in the Scriptures show that he was ever obedient to Jehovah’s commands. This was so whether these were contained in the Law or were directly received by Joseph through angels.\n\nA Righteous Man With Problems\n\nWhat should a godly person do when confronted with a major problem? Why, he should ‘throw his burden on Jehovah’ and follow divine direction! (Psalm 55:22) That is what Joseph did. While he was engaged to Mary, “she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.” Because Joseph ‘was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, he intended to divorce her secretly.’ After Joseph thought matters over, Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream and said: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife home, for that which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Upon awakening, Joseph “did as the angel of Jehovah had directed him, and he took his wife home. But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25) Joseph accepted divine direction.\n\nAugustus Caesar decreed that people register in their own cities. In obedience, Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem in Judea. There Mary gave birth to Jesus and had to lay him in a manger because no other accommodations were available. That night shepherds who had heard an angelic announcement of this special birth came to see the infant. About 40 days later, Joseph and Mary complied with the Law by presenting Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem along with an offering. Both of them wondered as they heard aged Simeon’s prophetic words about the great things Jesus would do.—Luke 2:1-33; compare Leviticus 12:2-4, 6-8.\n\nThough Luke 2:39 may seem to indicate that Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth right after presenting Jesus at the temple, this text is part of a condensed account. It appears that quite some time after the presentation at the temple, Oriental astrologers (Magi) visited Mary and Jesus in a house at Bethlehem. Divine intervention prevented this visit from bringing death to Jesus. After the Magi withdrew, Jehovah’s angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him: “Herod is about to search for the young child to destroy it.” As usual, Joseph heeded divine direction and took his family to Egypt.—Matthew 2:1-14.\n\nUpon the death of Herod, an angel appeared to Joseph in Egypt in a dream, saying: “Get up, take the young child and its mother and be on your way into the land of Israel.” Hearing that Herod’s son Archelaus was reigning in his father’s stead, Joseph was afraid to return to Judea. Heeding divine warning given in a dream, he went into the territory of Galilee and settled in the city of Nazareth.—Matthew 2:15-23.\n\nA Spiritual
898931
Satan was not the "best" but the most beautiful and he held a posistion that was one of the highest, a "coverer" Angels worshiped God like they do now before humans existed. Satan's source of greed and pride is from himself.
593914
I appreciate drshorty's honest but it only proves that Momonism is not biblical Christianity. The true Jesus who came to die and save us from our sins is the only begotten Son of God (John 1:1-4,14 3:16). He is not one of many spirit children but the ONLY begotten Son of God. Lucifer is an angel (not begotten son of God but a created being) who did rebel against God. So Momonism is false because they deny the foundation of Christianity. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Begotten meaning of the same substance. Jesus is God (Titus 2:13) the second member of the Trinity (Matthew 3:16-17). Angels are created as are humans. Angels serve God (sometimes referred to as the sons of God but not begotten sons only Jesus is begotten) and humans when they accept the true Jesus become adopted children of God but not spirit children and not begotten children. satan is not God and is not begotten of God and is not Jesus brother. Jesus is God.
14468
They are works of imagination. For one, Jesus being the son of a Nazarene, would have looked like a Middle Eastern person, not the brown haired blue eyed person that is typically portrayed by Western artists.\n\nFurthermore, Isaiah 53:2 (Christians presume that this chapter prophesieses of Jesus - for e.g. 53:1 is quoted in John 12:38) states that "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (this is from the New International Version). You could take this to mean that Jesus was not good looking either. Another interpretation could be that he did not look 'royal', but regardless, he was probably an average looking Joe.\n\nI'm not sure if I would want to fault the artists for their inaccurate portrayals of Jesus. Perhaps a misplaced attempt at depicting those aspects that we find admirable. In the end, the physical appearance is immaterial, it is what the man stands for that is important.
114901
Could this be the scripture you're thinking of?\n\nJohn 8:44 - "You are from your father the Devil, and tou wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie."\n\nThis was Jesus speaking about the religious leaders of his day and likening them to Satan, the Devil, who was the first murderer and liar of all time.  Genesis 3:1-5
633974
"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2)\n\nThis scripture from Isaiah foretells what Jesus would look like. His appearance most likely would have been more average or ordinary or plain. It does not sound like he would have had a very handsome appearance. This makes sense in that Jesus was humble. He was not a big military leader. He rode a donkey, not a large white stallion. Most likely he would have had an appearance of darker skin similar to someone of middle eastern descent. Jesus humbled himself and took a punishment he did not deserve to save us from judgment for our sins. God didn't want us to accept Jesus because He was tall, or handsome, or a great soldier, but because of who He was and what He did for us.
892346
Maybe but I don't think he is catholic. Actually I don't know what he is. I tried once after watching a Frontline show called The Jesus Factor, to find out if he had ever been baptized, and from what I have research, I found nowhere that he has.
353811
It seems to me the remainder of your question has a slight bent towards Alexandrian Christology, which if taken to its extreme can lead to dynamic monarchianism, apollinarianism and possibly eutychianism. \n\nBasically all those things assert this. That though Jesus was fully God, and yet fully man, the dynamic monarchianists would assert that his divinity "swallowed up" or "consumed" his humanity so that he was not really, or essentially "human", therefore, it was the divine who suffered, and died rather than the humanity. \n\nThis is problematic however, since in His divine nature, he was that who maintained the cosmos, was omniscient and omnipresent, etc, but that it could not have been his divine nature who had suffered and died, for it would be logically inconsistent for the Logos (Word) to- as God, die, for Jesus declared himself (as God): "I am the way the truth and the LIFE", and in Him and through Him were all things wrought since the beginning of the world. \n\nHis humanity therefore was the only substance that could have on our behalf, suffered and died, and that it was through the empowerment of his human nature, by the divine nature that (was Life) that ressurected the body from the grave, for apart from the Logos (Life, the Word), there could have been no ressurection. \n\nIf you read the work "On the Incarnation of the Word" by Athanasius, in it, it is discussed that the cross was a befitting death for the God-man. It was by no means an underscored type death for one who was also fully man as well as God. For in His death, it was his humanity which suffered and died, not his divine nature.\n\nIn response to the pre-ordainment of the Temple and the events leading to the incident with Judas, again this relied on human agency (will) as well as the "media scientia" (middle knowledge)-where God knows all contingent effects from all and every act that could possibly exist. In other words, he knew what would happen if Judas betrayed him, and yet he also knew what would happen if Judas did not betray him.  \n\n--Hope that helps--
753920
Jesus was Jewish (He was born of the Jewish line) His skin was dark.
108064
I believe that Jesus may have actually BEEN a Buddha, ie: enlightened one, and it is true that there is a lot of Buddhist subtext, especially in the NT where Paul tells us to not be attached to anything, and Matthew implies that the apostles lived almost like Buddhist monks: ie: not carrying anything with them, asking for handouts of food as "payment," and not having more than the clothes on their backs. \n\nI was talking about this just the other day with my teacher, I'm glad that someone else picked up on this too! However, there is no real way to determine whether Jesus was a Buddhist, but I definately think that he was on the same page as many of them are.\n\nBuddhas do not reincarnate, once they are enlightened they don't keep reincarnating. And I'm not saying that Jesus was one, I'm saying he could possibly be one by the definition of Buddha. I'm really not trying to undermine anyone's beliefs, just giving things to think about. \nI think it makes it easier when I tell people that I don't believe in anything and when I spurt things out like this, it's all hypothetical. You're still free to think what you want, but there is a lot of Buddhist ideology in the Bible.