PDA

View Full Version : Is Jesus of Nazereth, the Messiah, the Son of God, also God the Son



Oepty
01-01-2009, 09:59 AM
This thread is discuss whether the doctine of Christ being God is the most accurate interpretation of the Bible's teaching about Jesus. It is not meant to be a discussion on historical evidence for his existence or any other topic like that.

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, born miracalously after his mother concieved under the influence of God, through the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:34-35)
He did not exist before this point in the same way we did not exist before our conception. He was part of God's purpose from the being, and is spoken of prophetically throughout the Old Testament. Firstly in Genesis 3:15, where Jesus is referred to as the seed of the woman who would crush sin.

Jesus lived a perfect life in total obedience to his Father and this obedience extended to him dieing for our sins. He was the embodiment of God's purpose (John 1:14), and his character was God's character. This meant he could say 'If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also' John 14:7.

Jesus is now with God in heaven and is our mediator in heaven, 1 Timothy 2:5

Scott

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2009, 12:20 PM
This thread is discuss whether the doctine of Christ being God is the most accurate interpretation of the Bible's teaching about Jesus. It is not meant to be a discussion on historical evidence for his existence or any other topic like that.

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, born miracalously after his mother concieved under the influence of God, through the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:34-35)
He did not exist before this point in the same way we did not exist before our conception.
Then he must have lied when he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), and the Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi I am) parallels God's revelation of his name to Moses (Ex. 3:14). That's why Jesus' enemies planned to stone him.

John must have lied when he said:


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:1–14).

Here, the Word is clearly Jesus, and was there from the beginning, and the maker of things. These are attributes of God.

Hebrews 1:3 calls the Son "the exact representation" of God, and v. 8 has a specific statement of the Son's divinity from God (the Father) himself:

But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Paul calls Jesus ‘LORD’ in a number of contexts makes it very clear that it has the meaning ‘YHWH’ (Jehovah). E.g. in Romans 10:9–13:


‘That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”’Verse 13 provides the context of what ‘Lord’ means in ‘Jesus is Lord’—it is a citation of Joel 2:32:


‘And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls.’
Here, the Hebrew text makes it clear that it’s YHWH, yet Paul applies it to Jesus.

In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul writes:


‘Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.’
Here, Paul is applying the famous Shema of Deut. 6:4 ‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.’ Paul has used the key phrase ‘one Lord’ and applied it to Jesus Christ, thus including Jesus in the divine identity. Also, phrases like ‘of’ or ‘by whom all things’ are typical Jewish formulations that express God’s relationship to creation. This is in line with the Jewish concept of Wisdom, God’s attribute, as God’s tool for creation. Yet this still retains monotheism by including Jesus within the divine identity.

YHWH Himself said ‘I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.’ (Isaiah 43:11). So calling Jesus ‘Savior’ is logically calling Him YHWH since YHWH is the only savior.

Jesus is also the one who said that he sends the Holy Spirit (John 15:26) and prophets (Mt. 23:34) which are uniquely divine attributes.

Jesus also pointed out that those who don't ‘honour the Son just as they honour the Father’ do not honour the Father either (John 5:23).

Spiny Norman
01-01-2009, 01:20 PM
What Jono said ... couldn't have said it better myself ... actually, I probably couldn't have said it at all ... but very well put Jono!

Oepty
01-01-2009, 01:32 PM
Then he must have lied when he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), and the Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi I am) parallels God's revelation of his name to Moses (Ex. 3:14). That's why Jesus' enemies planned to stone him.

John must have lied when he said:


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:1–14).

Here, the Word is clearly Jesus, and was there from the beginning, and the maker of things. These are attributes of God.

Hebrews 1:3 calls the Son "the exact representation" of God, and v. 8 has a specific statement of the Son's divinity from God (the Father) himself:

But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Paul calls Jesus ‘LORD’ in a number of contexts makes it very clear that it has the meaning ‘YHWH’ (Jehovah). E.g. in Romans 10:9–13:


‘That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”’Verse 13 provides the context of what ‘Lord’ means in ‘Jesus is Lord’—it is a citation of Joel 2:32:


‘And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls.’
Here, the Hebrew text makes it clear that it’s YHWH, yet Paul applies it to Jesus.

In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul writes:


‘Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.’
Here, Paul is applying the famous Shema of Deut. 6:4 ‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.’ Paul has used the key phrase ‘one Lord’ and applied it to Jesus Christ, thus including Jesus in the divine identity. Also, phrases like ‘of’ or ‘by whom all things’ are typical Jewish formulations that express God’s relationship to creation. This is in line with the Jewish concept of Wisdom, God’s attribute, as God’s tool for creation. Yet this still retains monotheism by including Jesus within the divine identity.

YHWH Himself said ‘I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.’ (Isaiah 43:11). So calling Jesus ‘Savior’ is logically calling Him YHWH since YHWH is the only savior.

Jesus is also the one who said that he sends the Holy Spirit (John 15:26) and prophets (Mt. 23:34) which are uniquely divine attributes.

Jesus also pointed out that those who don't ‘honour the Son just as they honour the Father’ do not honour the Father either (John 5:23).

Jono. I was aware of all these quotes before you posted them and their is nothing new in them. I will deal with them one at time in seperate posts.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2009, 01:46 PM
Jono. I was aware of all these quotes before you posted them and their is nothing new in them. I will deal with them one at time in seperate posts.
Come on Scott, how can you expect me to be aware of what you are aware of. There may be nothing new, but that's because the Deity of Christ was recognized by the Apostles and early Church Fathers almost 2000 years ago.

Thanks, TSK :)

Oepty
01-01-2009, 02:26 PM
Come on Scott, how can you expect me to be aware of what you are aware of. There may be nothing new, but that's because the Deity of Christ was recognized by the Apostles and early Church Fathers almost 2000 years ago.

Thanks, TSK :)

Jono. I think you misunderstood me, but i am not sure what you are getting at. What does TSK mean?
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2009, 03:45 PM
Jono. I think you misunderstood me, but i am not sure what you are getting at. What does TSK mean?
The Snail King.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2009, 03:47 PM
etc etc etc blah blah blah
AC, RS made the topic of discussion for this thread perfectly clear, so find another thread to troll argue in.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2009, 04:10 PM
Moderation Notice


AC, RS made the topic of discussion for this thread perfectly clear, so find another thread to troll argue in.

Agreed.

I initally almost deleted AC's post for trolling as it seemed to be a one-liner then I noticed that what was going on was his usual hopeless inability to use the quote function properly and there were comments interspersed through the quoted text. However reading those I see that they were off-topic anyway and have deleted his post.

As Ralph Sertez clearly defined in his original post this thread is for discussing whether or not Jesus being God is a correct interpretation of scripture. Debate about whether or not either existed, which AC was engaging in, is off-topic and will be deleted or moved.

Adamski
01-01-2009, 04:14 PM
Well put, Jono, and well moderated, Kevin!

Oepty
01-01-2009, 05:37 PM
Moderation Notice



Agreed.

I initally almost deleted AC's post for trolling as it seemed to be a one-liner then I noticed that what was going on was his usual hopeless inability to use the quote function properly and there were comments interspersed through the quoted text. However reading those I see that they were off-topic anyway and have deleted his post.

As Ralph Sertez clearly defined in his original post this thread is for discussing whether or not Jesus being God is a correct interpretation of scripture. Debate about whether or not either existed, which AC was engaging in, is off-topic and will be deleted or moved.

Thank you Kevin. I was just going to ignore it, but what you have done is better.
Scott

Oepty
01-01-2009, 07:01 PM
Then he must have lied when he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), and the Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi I am) parallels God's revelation of his name to Moses (Ex. 3:14). That's why Jesus' enemies planned to stone him.


Jono, I don't think you should be implying that I am calling Jesus a liar, but perhaps I am too sensitive.
I find the claim that the Greek phrase egō eimi being used in this quote is a reference to Gods name to be wrong, because of three reasons.
1. The phrase is used many times throughout the New Testament both by Jesus, where he is clearly not intending to refer to God's name, and by others. These include, the blind man John 9:9, the angel Gabriel Luke 1:19 and the apostle Peter Acts 10:21. There is nothing special about the phrase it just means I am.
2. Jesus was not talking about whether he was God or not. He was trying to convince the Jews that he had more authority than Abraham. He quite clearly refers to the Father being the Jews God in verse 54, seperating himself from that identity. He also refers to himself and God being two witnesses in verses 17 and 18. If they really are one in the trinity then it is only one witness.The Jews seem to particularly clueless to what he is saying and as it does not say why they tried to stone him I don't think we can say why they tried to kill him.
3. The translation of the name of God in Exodus as I AM is not necessarily the best translation. It is probably better translated I WILL BE. I do not know Hebrew so I make this point cautiously and I guess I could quite easily be wrong.

I will move onto John 1 next, although I am not going to have a great deal of time over the next couple of weeks. I will be occupied with helping at the Australian Juniors from tommorrow until the 13th. Can any slowness of reply please be excused.
Scott

ER
01-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Careful with the emphatic nature of Εγώ ειμί in classical Hellenic! Eγώ, was used in special cases as in "I am and none else"! Hellenes then, as well as in today's Modern Greek would use είμαι (contemporary use of ειμί). Εγώ είμαι is used emphatically when one wants to describe unique situations!
CAGLES

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2009, 11:24 AM
I find the claim that the Greek phrase egō eimi being used in this quote is a reference to Gods name to be wrong, because of three reasons.
1. The phrase is used many times throughout the New Testament both by Jesus, where he is clearly not intending to refer to God's name, and by others. These include, the blind man John 9:9, the angel Gabriel Luke 1:19 and the apostle Peter Acts 10:21. There is nothing special about the phrase it just means I am.
It is emphatic, because the Greek verbs already had information on the person—εἰμί means "I am" on its own. With the blind man, some people were questioning whether he really was the blind man or someone who looked like him, so he said "I am" as an emphatic identifier.

More importantly, Jesus used it several times without an object and also in cases where no one doubted it was Jesus. Normally we would say "I am [something]", e.g. "I am Gabriel" as above, but Jesus simply said "I am". Sometimes the English versions hide it by "I am he" but the "he" is not in the Greek (Koinē). There are a number of these I AM statements (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.html), which also relate to God's statements in Isaiah, ani hu.


2. Jesus was not talking about whether he was God or not. He was trying to convince the Jews that he had more authority than Abraham.
By contrasting Abraham's γενέσθαι (genesthai) denoting that he came into existence, with His own "am" which avoids the past tense because He just exists. It is very clear that He is claiming to have pre-existed Abraham, who died long before He was born, but even more: that he didn't even come into existence. Here is a detailed study on John 8:58 and Ex. 3:14 (http://www.geocities.com/adaniels700/gospeltruths.html?1067540543700).


He quite clearly refers to the Father being the Jews God in verse 54, seperating himself from that identity. He also refers to himself and God being two witnesses in verses 17 and 18. If they really are one in the trinity then it is only one witness.
Not at all: the Trinity is one God, three persons. The noted scholar N.T. Wright points out,


In this context it is vital for our purposes that we stress one fact. Within the most fiercely monotheistic of Jewish circles throughout our period—from the Maccabaean revolt to Bar-Kochba—there is no suggestion that “monotheism” or praying the Shema, had anything to with the numerical analysis of the inner being of Israel’s god himself. It had everything to do with the two-pronged fight against paganism and dualism. Indeed, we find strong evidence during this period of Jewish groups and individuals, who, speculating on the meaning of some difficult passages of scripture (Daniel 7, for example, or Genesis 1), suggested that the divine being might encompass a plurality. Philo could speculate about the Logos as, effectively, a second divine being [ton deuteron theon]; the Similitudes of Enoch might portray the Son of Man/Messiah as an eternal divine being; but none of these show any awareness that they are transgressing normal Jewish monotheism. Nor are they. The oneness of Israel’s God, the creator, was never an analysis of this god’s inner existence, but always a polemic against paganism and dualism.


The Jews seem to particularly clueless to what he is saying and as it does not say why they tried to stone him I don't think we can say why they tried to kill him.
What for if not for blasphemy? It was hardly the only time, yet Jesus never attempts to correct this misunderstanding, if such it was. Nor did he correct Thomas who said to Him, "My Lord and my God".


3. The translation of the name of God in Exodus as I AM is not necessarily the best translation. It is probably better translated I WILL BE. I do not know Hebrew so I make this point cautiously and I guess I could quite easily be wrong.
The Jewish Publication Society's translation has "I AM THAT I AM", and they probably know the best rendering of the Hebrew אהיה אשר אהיה ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh. The LXX, translated c. 250 BC, has ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ ὢν (egō eimi ho ōn I am the being).


I will move onto John 1 next, although I am not going to have a great deal of time over the next couple of weeks. I will be occupied with helping at the Australian Juniors from tommorrow until the 13th. Can any slowness of reply please be excused.
Certainly. I will also likely be incommunicado from 5–9.

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2010, 08:39 AM
My Christmas article for this year: The Incarnation: Why did God become Man? (http://creation.com/incarnation-why-god-became-man)

antichrist
28-12-2010, 08:47 AM
As Scott perceives a time when Jesus (God) did not exist, ie, before he was born, then it could be also be perceived that there could be a time when he stops existing. What Scott is doing is setting up a hierarchy of Gods, those of infinity, and those of temporily statue presumably at the hands of God the Father.

In Scott's first post I feel he is stating that there are two gods. This makes sense in the context of Jesus crying out on the cross - Father why has thou forsaken me?

Then comes the point can Jesus rebel against God the father just as Lucifer rebelled against God the father? Can God the Father and Jesus disagree on who can enter Heaven etc?

When considering the have the Old and New Testaments and their contradictions and changes, is this already an idealogical war between Jesus and God the Father?

Oepty
28-12-2010, 01:32 PM
In Scott's first post I feel he is stating that there are two gods.


Absolutely not. You are completely, totally and utterly wrong.
Scott

antichrist
29-12-2010, 08:08 AM
Absolutely not. You are completely, totally and utterly wrong.
Scott

From Scott post 1:
Jesus lived a perfect life in total obedience to his Father and this obedience extended to him dieing for our sins. He was the embodiment of God's purpose (John 1:14), and his character was God's character. This meant he could say 'If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also' John 14:7.

AC
As Jesus lived in obedience to his father, that means that there are two of them, and as they are both Gods, that means there are two gods - pure and simple and short and to the point.

The more gods there are the more happier you should be - they can gang up on the Devil better, corner him and give him a good kick in the backside - that will teach him.

antichrist
29-12-2010, 09:41 PM
St Paul:
‘That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified

AC
As states that God raised Jesus from the dead then that proves they are different entities and therefore justifying the position of two gods.

If God the Father and Jesus are the same person, that means that Jesus was talking to himself when saying "father why has thou forsaken me?" And if Jesus was God he would already know the answer anyway. So the Scripture points to Jesus not being God.

Adamski
29-12-2010, 11:14 PM
In addition to scriptures already cited by Jono, Scott needs to explain Col 1:16 with his interpretation. That clearly says that Jesus was the Creator, and by Him all things were created. He could only be so by being God the Son, as indeed He is.

antichrist
30-12-2010, 09:13 AM
In addition to scriptures already cited by Jono, Scott needs to explain Col 1:16 with his interpretation. That clearly says that Jesus was the Creator, and by Him all things were created. He could only be so by being God the Son, as indeed He is.

But we can't accept that coz he did not create God the Father, or was Jesus only a creator of universes but not Gods, so had restricted powers compared to the Father?

To sum up Jesus may have been a universal creator in the literal sense in creation of universes but not a universal creator in the figurative sense because he could not create gods. Or as far as we know he could not or did not create gods.

Adamski
30-12-2010, 10:27 AM
God (the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit) is eternal, not created.

antichrist
30-12-2010, 11:41 AM
From Scott first post:
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, born miracalously after his mother concieved under the influence of God, through the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:34-35)
He did not exist before this point in the same way we did not exist before our conception.

AC
This makes it perfectly clear that Jesus has not always existed so he is not eternal, nor going back anyway. If Jesus was created at the whim of God the Father, it is possible that God the Father still has those superior powers that could de-commission Jesus. In fact this may have already occurred when Jesus cried "Father, why has thou forsaken me?" We would presume from Jesus' wailing that if he still had the power to preform miracles that he would have saved himself, so maybe that was his final demise. Like we promote a pawn to a queen than lose it in battle again.

Desmond
31-12-2010, 10:18 AM
He did not exist before this point in the same way we did not exist before our conception. He was part of God's purpose from the beingJust a twinkle in God's eye, as it were.

antichrist
31-12-2010, 10:27 AM
Just a twinkle in God's eye, as it were.

And as Norm Gunstan would say "just an itch in his ole man's Capt Undies"

littlesprout85
11-03-2011, 07:10 PM
lets see here,

The pope has released ems new book on Jesus today. It is written in 7 different languages. Might make for some good reading :hmm: Sprouts going to put it onz the 2011 reading list :eek:

-Sprout85 =)

Tony Dowden
11-03-2011, 09:38 PM
This thread is discuss whether the doctine of Christ being God is the most accurate interpretation of the Bible's teaching about Jesus. It is not meant to be a discussion on historical evidence for his existence or any other topic like that.

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, born miracalously after his mother concieved under the influence of God, through the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:34-35)
He did not exist before this point in the same way we did not exist before our conception. He was part of God's purpose from the being, and is spoken of prophetically throughout the Old Testament. Firstly in Genesis 3:15, where Jesus is referred to as the seed of the woman who would crush sin.

Jesus lived a perfect life in total obedience to his Father and this obedience extended to him dieing for our sins. He was the embodiment of God's purpose (John 1:14), and his character was God's character. This meant he could say 'If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also' John 14:7.

Jesus is now with God in heaven and is our mediator in heaven, 1 Timothy 2:5

Scott

Hi Scott,

It seems to me that the main problem with your statement(s) about doctrine lies with your claim which I have bolded (above).

If you rewrite this as "he did not exist in human form before this point" I think it would satisfy the various objections raised thus far.

In addition you might like to clarify your intentions regarding this thread. (What do you want to discuss in particular?)

Cheers, Tony

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2011, 07:07 AM
My Christmas article for this year: The Incarnation: Why did God become Man? (http://creation.com/incarnation-why-god-became-man)
For this year, The Census of Quirinius: Did Luke get it wrong? (http://creation.com/quirinius-census-luke)

Bereaved
25-12-2011, 07:20 AM
For this year, The Census of Quirinius: Did Luke get it wrong? (http://creation.com/quirinius-census-luke)

Hi Jono, Merry Christmas, Allelujah, Immanuel is with us!!

Regarding your article you have published, which I have just read, the date stamp is a little curious :)...perhaps you might like to edit it?

Take care and God Bless, Bereaved

antichrist
25-12-2011, 08:21 AM
For this year, The Census of Quirinius: Did Luke get it wrong? (http://creation.com/quirinius-census-luke)

Read the first few paragraphs, cant believe that anyone would be so interested in ancient unproven, impossible fables. I would think that is short-sighted and self-indulgent to concentrate on fables and myths when you don''t act about the current world problems such as global warming etc.

If's your life and you will do as you want - lead the sheep over the precipice.

The blood line from Jesus (not conceding his existence) to David was part of the set up in the story to help make it stick. Of course they would make the story fit the pre-existing conditions. There have been numerous deluded folk since then who also thought they were God, so it is just a common psychological occurence.

antichrist
25-12-2011, 09:07 AM
if Jesus was the son of God how was he conceived? Prodos dont believe in Mary so who was the mother?'

What was this supposed son of God doing for 30 years before exposing himself? So he only clocked on for duty for 3 years, and knowing that he would be hung up 3 years later he certainly was a bludger. Bit of an attention whore I would say!

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2011, 02:16 PM
if Jesus was the son of God how was he conceived? Prodos dont believe in Mary so who was the mother?'
Protestants certainly believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus, who was conceived via the Holy Spirit overshadowing the womb. See an ancient article of mine, The Virginal Conception of Christ (http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ).

antichrist
25-12-2011, 03:52 PM
a) Virginitas in partu: Mary gave birth in such a way as to avoid labour pains and leave her hymen intact.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2011, 01:30 AM
a) Virginitas in partu: Mary gave birth in such a way as to avoid labour pains and leave her hymen intact.
But in the article, I explicitly rejected this one.

antichrist
26-12-2011, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
a) Virginitas in partu: Mary gave birth in such a way as to avoid labour pains and leave her hymen intact.

Jono
But in the article, I explicitly rejected this one.

AC
But who are you? A nobody. Those ancient theologians are famous down through the centuries. No one cares two hoots what you say. Of course God can leave Mary's hymen intact if God so wishes, you can't tell God what or what not to do. If Jesus could heal the sick and resurrect the dead then whilst being born surely he could have anointed Mary so as not to endure labour pains.

Your view of God is very limited, you are using the science and logic of humans - but if you wish to do that you should be consistent and say there is no God. Not pick and choose what you want to take on board.

You sound like those anarchist Christians in Britain 400 years ago, the Quakers etc.

Rincewind
26-12-2011, 07:47 PM
From XKCD....

A new mnemonic for remembering the planets of our solar system from the Sun outwards...

Mary's Virgin Explanation Makes Joseph Suspect Upstairs Neighbour.

antichrist
03-03-2015, 09:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUxTFt8pB0

I think that Jesus is a bit of a joke to them - how dare they