This is the one thing I haven't been able to reconcile about the Christian faith(s) since I was a child.

It is one of the prominent factors that drove me to renounce Christianty when I was 8.

Here's the way I see it.

(for sake of argument, I am going to assume that an historical Jesus DID actually exist for the time being)

Jesus was a pretty typical Jew 200 years ago.
He read his Bible.
Went to Synagogue.
Learned his lessons.

What set him apart from the "average" Jew is what set him apart from the "average" person.

He was exceptionally kind, open minded, intelligent and (presumably) charismatic.
As he got older, he began to question his religion (just as many, if not most, exceptional people do).
He learned about other religions out there.
He traveled and met people of varying faiths (older and newer than Judaism).
He gained knowledge and acquired wisdom.

With this (at about age 30) he decided that the Jewish people were interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
He set out to teach people what was wrong with how they were interperting the Bible and what was wrong with Judaism in general.
(this is much like the story of Buddha rebelling against the Brahamic religions of HIS time)

Many people were questioning Judaism at the time, but did not garner the respect and gather the following that he did.
His followers called him Jesus Christ (the Anointed one).

What he was teaching was not only contradictory to what Jews were taught, it was detrimental to the welfare of the synagogue.
He was telling people that they do not need to go to church! *gasp*

The Jewish leaders were pissed of at his impertinence and were scared.
They had him assasinated.

That's it.

Why revere him as a god-man?
He said he was the son of God.
He ALSO said we are ALL the children of God.
Reading his sermons and teachings he really seemed to me that he was trying to impress on the people that he is NOT special.
He was just a man, just as everyone else is.

When he said that people will find their salvation throught him, he was referring to his WORDS.
His teachings.
He wasn't calling himself God.
He was calling himself human.
He believed simply that he had found the answers to salvation and wanted to share that with the masses out of the goodness of his heart.

Then his follwers, after his death, were out preaching his word, and of course, as it will ALWAYS happen, his deeds and life were imbellished to convert people and convince them that he was not just some crackpot (like all the other "crackpots" of the time that had their OWN interpretations of the Bible).
He had to be "special".
Imbellishments have a way of growing and spreading.

I really don't think that it was any more amazing and supernatural than that.

If he was a physicl incarnate of God, he would have SAID that, not said that he was the SON of God.
If he was beyond normal people, or better, or closer to God, then he would not have referred to all mankind as the children of God.

That's what I think anyway.

Am I wrong?
How so?

They chose Jesus because the talking donkey was too weird.

Why revere him as a god-man?
Jesus was/is sinless, yet a man biologically. He also performed miracles.
What he was teaching was not only contradictory to what Jews were taught, it was detrimental to the welfare of the synagogue.
He was telling people that they do not need to go to church! *gasp*
Yeah, Jews were pissed at Him. Also, here they thought they were waiting for a fancy, royal, majestic king to redeem the world... and here comes a modest, humble, cosmetically human man claiming He is Lord and the world has yet to be redemmed. :bugeye:

Jesus sinned to what was normal to a man. Cause he was man... He was protected by god from big sins because he was a prophet and messanger of god.

God's Word promises in 1 Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has seized you Except what is common to man . And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."

one raven,

He said he was the son of God.
He ALSO said we are ALL the children of God.

Yes I agree with this as well. I believe we all have the capability of evolving to the same level that Jesus did. Of course this is blasphemy according to the Christian religion.

Come here brothers and sisters....Big group hug.:D

Good post one_raven!

It could be that Jesus used his mind and this gave rise to the way he lived his life, i.e. he chose to do the things he did, or it could be that because every action has a reaction, after the birth of humanity, it was inevitable that the different societies would produce one person who was so pure and literally perfect. Maybe this is a phenomonon which, purely becuase of the way things are, occurs every few thousnd years. Maybe it is inevitable that there will be a second coming, remember there is only six thousand years of recorded human history which isn't really that long compared to the universe. Time only really began being organized around Christ hence b.c, a.d.

Again the film the Matrix is relevant here!

Jesus could have chose to follow God through his mind or he could have been sent by God, or it could just be a natural phenomonon, which I would say still means that he was sent by God, i.e. the creators touch, through creation itself, still caused his appearance, eventually.

Beyond that...

Since Jesus did not claim to BE God, rather (as I said above) he said that he is the son of God, just as you and I am, and not special, wouldn't naming a religion after him and revering him as a God break the first Commandment?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

If Jesus WAS just a teacher rebelling against Judaism and sharing his own interpretation of the Old Testament, then people are revering the teacher as a God.

Back to the title of the thread, "Why Jesus"...

Where did Jesus ever say he was any more of a person, any more special or divine than any other man?
Where did he ever say that he was anything more than the son of God, just like everyone else?
When did he say he WAS God?

John 14: 7-9

Originally posted by SVRP
John 14: 7-9
John 14
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Yeah?
And?

I don't quite get your point.
Care to elaborate?

Prior to the birth of Jesus the Romans controlled the Mediterranean area. And the Hebrew were under the control of Caesar. Well it was prophesized that one would come to lead them. The Hebrews looked for a king to lead their nation and to return it back to them. There were those that expected the messiah to lead the Jews against the Romans. Jesus proclaimed to be that man but instead of being a great king who would lead the Jews thru war, he instead brought a message of peace and forgiveness. His premise can be summed up really into the fact that all men/woman are equal in the eyes of god. Jesus did not go to rich he did not ask for anything he went among the weak, the poor, and any who would listen and taught his message. Breaking Jewish tradition he would go among both Jews and Gentiles, he taught that god held no people above another. We also see that he scolded those that made Judaism into what Christianity is today. By that, there are those who have made Christianity into a commodity, that is bought and sold, and in that it lost much of its intended purpose. OF course this began early in church, because we want to be both apart of the world and God. And that is what Jesus taught is not to be done. In reality to follow Jesus, as he would have wanted you would have to cast away the world (you cannot serve both god and the world), and devote your life to god. And no I don’t mean being a priest or a pastor or any of that crap. It would mean going out to help people, to teach people, to be a missionary.
My own personal perception of what Jesus wanted is to create a utopian society with god at its center. He wanted to create a place that is not governed by laws, but by basic human decency. A world without laws seems like a place of chaos, but by believing in Jesus there is the assumption that god will ultimately judge all. So if a man kills another man who are we to judge them, if a man steals from you let him have it, you’ll live without it. And if it’s important enough god will provide it. Yet if we lived in a world where all men were seen as brothers and family then we would all help each other and all men would be the equal. And the world would be a pretty boring place, but a great place to live.
Who am I though, “the blind leading the blind”. I know a little probably not enough though. Although the question of faith is a struggle it comes and goes and it is a hard thing to maintain even for a short time. Science and reason can only lead you so far though; there are gaps in everything. That’s the beauty of believing there is more then just this life, it fills those gaps and adds a purpose to life. And if Jesus was nothing more then one hell of philosopher well following his teaching and trying to be little better to those around you enriches your life and others.

J

John 10
24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."


Yes everybody who listen to God's word are "children" or sons of God, but only becuase He chose and adopted them.

As to why we call ourselves "Christian": because it is in the name of Christ that we were saved and are forgiven. That is why we are baptized in his name. We have all sinned and are guilty before God.

But a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Old Testament testifies. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.(Rom.3:21)

It was only through Christ that we have been reconciled. And if Christ did not have the full authority of God, this would not have been possible. Nobody else can claim that much. If you say you are a son of God, and do not accept that Jesus was resurrected by God, then you deny that God reconciled us with Him, and you deny God's love. This is why some people can only see what they call "the injustice of God" - because they fail to see the justice of God and his mercy.

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life. Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Rom. 10)

Originally posted by Jenyar
It was only through Christ that we have been reconciled. And if Christ did not have the full authority of God, this would not have been possible. Nobody else can claim that much.

I disagree.

I guess it depends on how you view what "through Jesus" means.

From how I see it (judging by what I have read in the bible) when Jesus said that you will find God (or redemption or however you want to refer to the kingdom, goodness and grace of God) all he was simply saying was that through his words and lessons he taught in his teachings of what he believed was "God's plan".

"Through me" has nothing to do with him being God, part of God, or intentionally sent BY God, it was simply a way of saying "learn, understand and abide by my teachings".

Originally posted by Jenyar
If you say you are a son of God, and do not accept that Jesus was resurrected by God, then you deny that God reconciled us with Him, and you deny God's love.

Well, I never DID say I was the son of God.
But this is what Jesus was saying.
That is really beside the point, however.

I hardly see how not believing that Jesus was sent down by God with the intention of dying for our sins (which makes no sense to me AT ALL) and resurrected would be me denying the love of God.

How do you come to that conclusion?

First of all there is the concept that "Jesus died for our sins".
How does that make sense?
Why would God have to send down his son to die by the hands of man in order for him to forgive me my sins?
If he is benevolent and good and forgiving, why would that stipulation be there?
What is the purpose?
"Well, you are all sinners, but if you kill my son, I will forgive you."
:bugeye: huh?
If Heaven does exist and is wonderful and beautiful, and Jesus was going there when he was done with his assignemt here, how is his death a sacrifice?
Even if Jesus WAS God's son and was sent down here to teach us his way, why would he have to be killed to do that?

Why would a person have to believe that Jesus was resurrected in order to love God and accept that God loves him?

one_raven,

It is pefectly natural to be skeptical about the whole "Jesus is God" thing. The probable reason that it seems weird is because the Trinity doctrine was not even a part of Christianity until the 4th century. The "triforce" (hehe, zelda) thing has it's roots in pagan mythology: the wyrd sisters, the fates, etc... Since Christianity has it's roots in Judaism, it must be pointed out that Judaism does not preach the Trinity doctrine ever. There has been a lot of addition to doctrine added on that is a little "out there" but is now excepted as canon.But there Christian churches that do not believe that God and Jesus are the same person.

The concept of the Trinity was derived from the gospels, it wasn't imposed on them. There is simply no other way of understanding how the Father, his Spirit, and his Son (all taken directly from the text) can be the One God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why complicate it unnecessarily? Because it adds to our understanding of God, and how our condition and redemption make sense. If it did not contribute anything to the gospel, the dogma would have been dropped even before it started.

As to your objections, one_raven, they only make sense if you ignore what the Bible says in the first place. According to Scripture, there is no love more evident than laying down your life for someone else, even though they do not deserve it. Jesus did exactly that, and "fulfilled the scripture". The Mosaic laws state quite clearly and elaborately how we are meant to live in relationship with God.

Ever wondered why confession of sin is such a huge part of Christian doctrine? Because only when you confess that you are a sinner, can you be cleared of guilt. If someone accused in court simply stays silent, they are leaving it to other to prove or clear their guilt in stead of defending themselves. Can you pardon a criminal if he denies having committed a crime? The one who accuses us is called Satan - the Accuser. Who will defend you if it turns out you are guilty? Jesus is our attorney. God is the Judge. You can look at any religion: there are obstacles, and ways to overcome them. Temptation, and Laws. But not one religion provides forgiveness for transgression. We all fall short. We have all been proven guilty.

The main theme of sin is our guilt. There is nothing in "finding God" if you can't have a relationship with Him, and sin prevents us from having a relationship with Him. Accusations do not prove guilt, but the accusations have to be proven true or false. That's why it's so easy to accuse, and so hard to be free. Lies have the advantage of being everything the truth is not, but the truth can only be the truth. The only truth we can hope to have is a perception of it. It's a narrow path.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The main theme of sin is our guilt. There is nothing in "finding God" if you can't have a relationship with Him, and sin prevents us from having a relationship with Him. Accusations do not prove guilt, but the accusations have to be proven true or false. That's why it's so easy to accuse, and so hard to be free. Lies have the advantage of being everything the truth is not, but the truth can only be the truth. The only truth we can hope to have is a perception of it. It's a narrow path.

How can sin prevent us from having a relationship with god and god is the all mercifull and compassionate that we need to repent to our sins. Anybody can decide to establish a relatioship with god if they are sinless or with tons of sin, whether they are in Jail or acting as a judge in a court room, whether they are opressing or being opressed. God will decide though wether or not to accept their relation based on whether their repentance are pure and meant.

Of course sin does not prevent a relationship. In fact God wants us to come to Him with our sins. But from our perspective sin is an obstruction if you do not denounce it. It keeps us from doing God's will. If you say you are in a relationship with God, but you don't live like it, you are being a hypocrite. In a living relationship with God, sin cannot survive.

Where did Jesus ever say he was any more of a person, any more special or divine than any other man?
Where did he ever say that he was anything more than the son of God, just like everyone else?
When did he say he WAS God?

To know Jesus was to know God. John 8:19, John 14:7
To see Jesus was to see God. John 12:45, John 14:9
To believe in Jesus was to believe in God. John 12:44, John 14:11
To receive Jesus was to receive God. Mark 9:37
To hate Jesus was to hate God. John 15:23
To honor Jesus was to honor God. John 5:23
We all can agree that it is impossible to know conclusively if God exists and what He is like, unless He takes the initative and reveals Himself to us. He has shown Himself through Jesus.

Second, the charge against Jesus from the Sanhedrin was an affirmation of the high priest's question, "Are You the Son of God?" (Luke 22:70) Their question implied if Jesus considered Himself equivalent to God. From Jesus's answer the Pharisees had two choices - bow to Him as their messiah, or charge Him with blasphemy. Jesus could hardly be called a great moral teacher if He deliberately lied about His identity.

Third, Jesus fulfilled 322 Old Testament prophecies regarding a suffering messiah (example, Isaiah 53), according to Hamilton Canon Liddon in his book, "The Basis of Christian Faith," p.156, and also as cited in Joseph P. Free & Howard F. Vos book, "Archaeology and Bible History", p.241.

Good for you SVRP. Please don't get to know god then, get busy knowing Jesus instead....I'm sure whoever wrote and translated the bible is absolutely correct and you can place your destiny on it....We all hope King James made it in heaven now for all the modern christians fate relies on his knowledge and morals while he authored the book of your study.

Creative hearsay supplemented by sloppy apologetics.

(for sake of argument, I am going to assume that an historical Jesus DID actually exist for the time being)

Let us continue to assume this

[As he got older, he began to question his religion (just as many, if not most, exceptional people do).
He learned about other religions out there.
He traveled and met people of varying faiths (older and newer than Judaism).
He gained knowledge and acquired wisdom.]

First I have to ask what is your historical reference for this historical basis? We have no evidence that he questioned his reliegion. In fact at the age of 12 he was having discussions and teaching learned rabbis

[With this (at about age 30) he decided that the Jewish people were interpreting the Bible incorrectly.]

He was actually 33 before he started his ministry to the people.

[What he was teaching was not only contradictory to what Jews were taught, it was detrimental to the welfare of the synagogue.
He was telling people that they do not need to go to church!]

There is also no basis for this arguement. "I come not to abolish the law but to fufill the law. Jesus never once contradicted the scripture of judaism. In fact he often quoted from it. What Jesus did contradict was some of the useless traditions. The jews were focussing on the traditions of man and not the message of God given through the prophets.

[Why revere him as a god-man?
He said he was the son of God.
He ALSO said we are ALL the children of God.]

Good argument here is where your argument is flawed. Jesus clained to be the Son of God and yes we are also children of God but there is a big difference. Through his teaching He told us that we are the adopted children of God. While Jesus himself actually claimed to be the Child of God. Huge difference. In science through Biology we know that a true child of someone has their parents genetic makeup. A child is made up of their x and y cells thus recieveing a combination of the parents chareter traits, personality traits, and even flaws. This is quite different from adopted children. Adopted children biologically have nothing the same as their adopted parents. Assume for a second that God is real and that God is perfect, infinite, all powerful, all knowing, and all present. That god is good, loving, caring, and forgiving. Then by reason from the same argument God had a son. This son would have the same make up as His father. Thus being God himself because he is the same as his father. This is where the Trinity comes into action. Although for argument sake let us leave out the third part of the trinity. You have God the father, and God the son, two distinct personalities but yet are the same thing. This is what Jesus was claiming that He was the actual Son of God making Himself God. God the Son. We are Gods children but we are his adopted children. We don't have any thing of his makeup except that we are created in his image. if you assume for this argument that Humans are Created beings.

[He wasn't calling himself God.
He was calling himself human.]

Refer to above argument. He was not calling himself human.

[If he was a physicl incarnate of God, he would have SAID that, not said that he was the SON of God.
If he was beyond normal people, or better, or closer to God, then he would not have referred to all mankind as the children of God.]

Thats just the point He was claiming to be the physical incarnate of God that is why He claimed to be the actual son of God. It was because of Gods message in the scriptures that we are called children of God. The Jews were Gods chosen people. God has adopted us as his children because he loved us and created us. We are apart of his creation at work. Jesus Christ imself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come unto the father but through me." Jesus Christ in this passage is claiming to be incarnate God and mediator for us. Look at the phrasing. I am the way, I am the truth. Jesus is not just claiming to know the truth or know the right way. He is claimin that He himself is the truth and that He himself is the way.
Also read John Chapter One paying special attention to the first few verses and then verse 14 I believe.

:)

Do you not realize that this is all fluff? It contains not one single compelling and substantiated statement of fact, and not one cogent argument.

[With this (at about age 30) he decided that the Jewish people were interpreting the Bible incorrectly.]

He was actually 33 before he started his ministry to the people.
I believe he said about age 30, in which case he would be correct.

As for the trinity thing, when he was baptized(if you want another thorn, I can point out that few Christian sects practice baptism by emersion, something specified in the Bible) He was being baptized, the Holy Ghost was in the air above him in the form of a dove, and God was speaking out of heaven. How to be in three places at once? Only one example. Only one of them is God.

Prior to the birth of Jesus the Romans controlled the Mediterranean area. And the Hebrew were under the control of Caesar. Well it was prophesized that one would come to lead them. The Hebrews looked for a king to lead their nation and to return it back to them. There were those that expected the messiah to lead the Jews against the Romans. Jesus proclaimed to be that man but instead of being a great king who would lead the Jews thru war, he instead brought a message of peace and forgiveness. Yes, they thought he would save them from the Romans, when he was actually saving them from themselves, and Hell.

Why would God have to send down his son to die by the hands of man in order for him to forgive me my sins? The sin thing was actually in Gethsemene. The punishment has to happen. The way it works is that He took that on himself. A normal man couldn't do this(especially in one night, considering that you would be in Hell for eternity), so His Son was the lamb on the alter. Dying on the cross broke the hold of death, allowing us to be ressurected.

Am I making sense?
Do you not realize that this is all fluff? It contains not one single compelling and substantiated statement of fact, and not one cogent argument. Definitely an athiest.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Do you not realize that this is all fluff? It contains not one single compelling and substantiated statement of fact, and not one cogent argument.

Dear Atheist, Do you realize that by even speaking up you are being a self-stultifying. Not only that but because you do not argue against the statements but instead put them down you are commiting the logical fallicy of Ad Hominem. You have yet provided any logical basis to discredit my argument. Just calling it fluff does not work in the scholarly relm. You said there was not one cogent argument well prove it. Point out the logical fallicies please. That way next time I present an argument I can make them more logically sound.
Secondly as too no statement of fact. I have to say this learn Koine Greek, then go and read the bible. Read the passage that I quoted, and you will see that the phrasing used is consitent to the translation that I gave it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gifted
[B]I believe he said about age 30, in which case he would be correct.

I was not saying it was incorrect, I was just clarifying the age for knowledge sake.

Originally posted by heflores
Good for you SVRP. Please don't get to know god then, get busy knowing Jesus instead....I'm sure whoever wrote and translated the bible is absolutely correct and you can place your destiny on it....We all hope King James made it in heaven now for all the modern christians fate relies on his knowledge and morals while he authored the book of your study.

King James did not author the bible. He translated the bible from the latin to Old English. The bible consists of two testaments the old testament which is written in ancient hebrew and the new testament which was written in ancient koine Greek. A dead language. I am pretty sure King James could not read, write, or speak either one of those. At least we have no record that he could. What he did was the bible had been translated from Greek to Latin so only the catholic hierarchy could read it. King James had the bible translated from Latin to Old English so that everyone could read it. Now yes this translation of the Bible lost a lot and missed some translations of things. But that is going to happen no matter what when you translate from something to something to something. But today is a whole other story. We actually have very old greek manuscripts. We have greek scholars who are able to translate these manuscripts. Thus today we have more reliable translations of the new testament greek bible. Instead of going from greek to latin to english, we can go straight to english from the greek, and even then you can still lose some of the meaning.

Originally posted by FrstKnight
Dear Atheist, Do you realize that by even speaking up you are being a self-stultifying. Who would have thunk? :rolleyes:

So tell me, what first hand acount of Jesus do you have, and to when do you date it?

Originally posted by FrstKnight
Through his teaching He told us that we are the adopted children of God. While Jesus himself actually claimed to be the Child of God.

I have never heard this.
I am not saying that it isn't true (I am fully aware that the fact that I haven't heard this does not mean it isn't true).

However, since I have never heard this, before I could believe it, I will need you to qualify it.

Can you quote some scriptures that reflect this?
How did you come to that conclusion?

Was it John 1?
The Word Made Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. Mt. 3.1 · Mk. 1.4 · Lk. 3.1, 2

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

I can definitely see how someone could construe it that way.
But it can also bee seen different ways.

Do you have more than that?

First of all, it was John's view, not Jesus'.
What I see is John waxing admiringly ABOUT Jesus.

He is saying that Jesus is the wise one.
Jesus is the light in a dark world.
Jesus knows that path to the kingdom of God.
And by following Jesus teachings and examples any man can reach the level of enlightenment that Jesus has.
You can BECOME a "Son of God" just like Jesus by following his teachings.

Do you have anything from the bible (Chapter and Verse, please) where Jesus states that he is the biological son of God, and we are not?
Anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says he is in some way above us?

One_Raven,

Ephesians 1
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will -- to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.


Jesus came to serve us. He put himself below us, and was fully human. He was no better than us, except that his nature did not come between God and himself, since He was also God "by nature".

Our understanding of 'biological' is human, based on scientific observation, and can never be more than that. Jesus was the firstborn of God, as Adam was the firstborn of humans. Adam was born out of nature, Jesus was born out of God's Spirit. Hence the "immaculate conception".

1 Corinthians 15
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

Dear One Raven.
Before I reply to your questions I ask time for further study. I do not want to argue something blindly. I will get further references and post them here. I have to say that I appreciate your debate style. Discussing statements is more ironing sharpening iron and better for the intelect than throwing around insults.

Do you have anything from the bible (Chapter and Verse, please) where Jesus states that he is the biological son of God, and we are not?
Anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says he is in some way above us?

John 8:51-59
51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.
52" The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, `If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.'
53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"
54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, `He is our God';
55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word.
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

The Jews knew from the statement Jesus made that the implication was He existed before Abraham and was equating Himself with God, a direct reference to Exodus 3: 13-15. They turned around to pick up stones to throw at Him because they considered it blasphemy.

(I prefer the New American Standard Bible because it is easier to read and understand, yet it is still true to the Hebrew and Greek translations.)
:)