What's your religion?

[ChainLegacy]

I'm of the opinion that if god is an omnipresent, omnipotent entity, as has often been described in Judeo-Christian religions, that directly contradicts any subsequent attempts to describe him as 'loving' or anything of that sort. If this is a being truly representing infinity (which I believe he would have to be to create the universe) our human description and understanding of him will never be enough. Which seems to be something many theists accept, but then on the other hand they talk about his forgiving nature, how he judges good vs. evil, etc. It can't go both ways in my view. If god is infinite, he encompasses both good and evil, he has no rudimentary, primitive sense of 'judgment' (which is an entirely animal concept) instead he would simply be the grand connector of everything there is and ever will be. All the human descriptions necessarily limit his infinite nature so they don't really mesh well.

[monster]

I think that once a person accepts that the nature of God is beyond his/her full understanding, then it becomes a matter of faith.

[LeoXiao]

Oh, and of course I will not say that different religions are not comparable. It's just that it doesn't make them any less different.

Okay, I'll accept that they are different, just not in the facets I imagined. For example, I don't really place too much emphasis on the form (either Christ or some "8-fold path" are pretty much equivalent to me), but I can understand how that would make a large difference to others. In the end it is a matter of perspective, and understanding the different kinds is important.

EDIT: About the God being benevolent thing, I'd say it's not so much "God is benevolent" so much as "God is capable of great benevolence". Thus, people who live according to his principles gain salvation, whereas those who oppose them are punished or otherwise done away with.

[monster]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

In the end it is a matter of perspective, and understanding the different kinds is important.

I agree with that.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If god is infinite, he encompasses both good and evil.

I think that's flawed logic, simply because omnipotence/omnipresence/whatever you want to apply to God doesn't actually mean that he can do everything imaginable. Remember the question, "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Well, no, because that question is devoid of logic. It's like asking God to make a four-sided triangle, or to flip a coin so that it lands both heads and tails. There are some things that just can't be done, and being both good and evil is one of those.

Incidentally, the distinction between good and evil is an important one. They're not opposites; instead, evil is simply a twisting of good. Evil actions are ones that provide a "good" result in the wrong manner. It's not wrong to own a TV, for example, but it's definitely wrong to steal one. It's not wrong to have a sense of satisfaction for a job well done, but it is wrong to be prideful about it.

In my mind, God can never be evil, simply by definition. Everything he is and does is good. Evil, then, comes as a result of acting against God's will. Furthermore, there HAS to be the opportunity for that sort of deviation, because otherwise good and evil as concepts wouldn't exist. If there was no such thing as darkness, then light wouldn't be LIGHT; it would just BE. Similarly, if God somehow WAS both good and evil, then those terms would be meaningless. Nothing would be good, and nothing would be bad. It would all just be "God."

[GundamFan0083]

I think there is some confusion as to the nature of the Hebrew God here.
Please allow me to humbly attempt to explain the concept of the Hebrew God to clarify that it is NOT the same concept of the "Triumverate god" that the Council of Nicea imposed on Chrisendom in 325 AD.
What all Christians are currently practicing is a State religion of the Holy Roman Empire (or a variant) as approved by the Council of Nicea.
In other words, it's not the religion of Jesus the Christ, it's the religion of Constantine the Emperor.
That is why I left Christianity behind almost twenty-years ago now.
I wanted to know the truth about the God of the Torah/Tanakh because I didn't believe what my Roman Catholic Priests were preaching at the pulpit.

The whole concept of the Trinity was the first one to fall for me.
If God created man, then he doesn't need to become man since God already understands man's nature.
Ruach Hakodesh, the Holy Spirit, is not the "Third Person of the Trinity of God".
What it actually supposed to be is divine wisdom/inspiration that is imparted on a mortal after that person has prepared himself/herself properly (diet, mediation, etc.).
In other words, Ruach Hakodesh is a person's ability to unlock the knowledge of the workings of the universe in either a mechanical (what we'd call science) or prophetical (metaphysical) manner.
The next part of the Trinity that I found inane was the concept of Jesus as god (or the son of god).
That is a direct violation of the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me."

Even though the concept of the trinity existed before Constantine's time, it was not universally accepted by the various Christian sects scattered over Rome (and abroad).
Constantine gave his Imperial approval to the concept of the trinity at the Council of Nicea, which also made Jesus a divine being as the son of god.
Since Constantine's Imperial seal solidified the decisions of the Council into law, the Emperor is responsible for the creation of the trinity.
He did this to claim the political power known as Divine Right of Rulership and turn Christianity into the state religion of Rome.
Those are the reasons I saw the "holy" trinity, and Catholicism in general, as an extension of a State Religion that had become essentially detached from the Hebrew religion it claimed to be directly decended from.

In so far as the Judeo-Christian God is concerned (not the religions) there is an excellent treatice on the nature of what God actually is, and is not.

Moses Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed was written in 12th century AD and is still as relevent today as it was then in so far as understanding the concept of Ain Sof (the infinite being).

One fact is clear.
The early Hebrews (before the first Kingdom of Israel) did not view God as being anything other than a Extra-Universal being (a thing which exists outside of universe) that infused in its creation the qualities that it(God) possessed.
Such as the ability to create via predetermined mechanisms in the basic birth, life, old age, and death cycles that apply to all things in this universe (both animate and inanimate), including stars, galaxies, and this universe itself.
This story is told in the Kabbalistic text The Sefer Yetsirah or Book of Creation.

[LeoXiao]

In my mind, God can never be evil, simply by definition. Everything he is and does is good. Evil, then, comes as a result of acting against God's will. Furthermore, there HAS to be the opportunity for that sort of deviation, because otherwise good and evil as concepts wouldn't exist. If there was no such thing as darkness, then light wouldn't be LIGHT; it would just BE. Similarly, if God somehow WAS both good and evil, then those terms would be meaningless. Nothing would be good, and nothing would be bad. It would all just be "God."

So pretty much "God is Good." I agree with this. I think the idea is that since God is good, He is also all-powerful because that which is evil can never ultimately surpass the righteous.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That is why I left Christianity behind almost twenty-years ago now.
I wanted to know the truth about the God of the Torah/Tanakh because I didn't believe what my Roman Catholic Priests were preaching at the pulpit.

The whole concept of the Trinity was the first one to fall for me.
If God created man, then he doesn't need to become man since God already understands man's nature.
Ruach Hakodesh, the Holy Spirit, is not the "Third Person of the Trinity of God".
What it actually supposed to be is divine wisdom/inspiration that is imparted on a mortal after that person has prepared himself/herself properly (diet, mediation, etc.).
In other words, Ruach Hakodesh is a person's ability to unlock the knowledge of the workings of the universe in either a mechanical (what we'd call science) or prophetical (metaphysical) manner.
The next part of the Trinity that I found inane was the concept of Jesus as god (or the son of god).
That is a direct violation of the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me."

Yeah, never mind that Jesus himself said he was God, and never mind that the Bible consistently references the Trinity (though not by name).

If you're going to reject the Bible, go ahead, but at least know what's in it first.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

I think that's flawed logic, simply because omnipotence/omnipresence/whatever you want to apply to God doesn't actually mean that he can do everything imaginable. Remember the question, "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Well, no, because that question is devoid of logic. It's like asking God to make a four-sided triangle, or to flip a coin so that it lands both heads and tails. There are some things that just can't be done, and being both good and evil is one of those.

Nonsense. If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, then he is at least partially responsible for all the good and all the evil in the world. Or are you trying to claim only one of those exists?

Incidentally, the distinction between good and evil is an important one. They're not opposites; instead, evil is simply a twisting of good. Evil actions are ones that provide a "good" result in the wrong manner. It's not wrong to own a TV, for example, but it's definitely wrong to steal one. It's not wrong to have a sense of satisfaction for a job well done, but it is wrong to be prideful about it.

Ah, yes. And the good of murdering children is...?

In my mind, God can never be evil, simply by definition. Everything he is and does is good. Evil, then, comes as a result of acting against God's will. Furthermore, there HAS to be the opportunity for that sort of deviation, because otherwise good and evil as concepts wouldn't exist. If there was no such thing as darkness, then light wouldn't be LIGHT; it would just BE. Similarly, if God somehow WAS both good and evil, then those terms would be meaningless. Nothing would be good, and nothing would be bad. It would all just be "God."

So... When there is an earthquake and thousands of people die, many of them children, it's because they went against God's will? They deserved it, is what you're trying to say? Or, heh, what about those kids who're born with some incurable, painful disease that'll kill them in a few years?

[idiffer]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Ah, yes. And the good of murdering children is...?



So... When there is an earthquake and thousands of people die, many of them children, it's because they went against God's will? They deserved it, is what you're trying to say? Or, heh, what about those kids who're born with some incurable, painful disease that'll kill them in a few years?

thats probably the details in which the devil hides. *
and in comes buddhism with the karma thing. those children were criminals in past lives.

*someone here said "the devil is in the details"...

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Yeah, never mind that Jesus himself said he was God, and never mind that the Bible consistently references the Trinity (though not by name).

If you're going to reject the Bible, go ahead, but at least know what's in it first.

Game_2k4, I do know what's in the Bible, however, I also know what it in the book of Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, Ezra III-V, Bel and the Dragon, the Zohar, Bahir, Sefer Yetsirah, and others.
You shouldn't be so quick to attack since it greatly weakens your position.
I have nothing but amicable feelings towards most followers of the Christian faith.
My angst is not with you or any other follower, it is with the leadership of Christendom that has lead their peoples astray.

There is no referrence to the Trinity anywhere in the Bible as put forth by the Council of Nicea.
There are no referrences to Jesus in the Torah/Old Testament (no matter how badly Christian scholars try to twist, spin, and blend the text).
Jesus was a great man, an incredible profit on the same scale as Moses and Abraham, but he was not god nor the Messiah.

I must ask you, in which Chapter and what verse did Jesus claim godhood or anything for that matter?

The entire new testament was written by his disciples, not him.
However, even if we assume that what the disciples wrote is 100% accurate, there is still nothing that states Jesus is god, nor is there anything which dismisses the law of the Torah.

I believe the Apostle Matthew was the one that claimed Jesus said this (Matthew 5:17-20):

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Yet Christians break the Mosaic law all the time.
They eat forbidden meats, worship on the first day of the week, honor pagan holidays (Christmas/Saturnalia, Easter/Ishtar fertility celebration, Holloween/Samhain), engage in usury, etc., etc.
They don't even follow the 7 Noahide Laws.
Yet the Christian churches claim some kind of "chosen one" status for their flocks.
The fact is, there are no "chosen ones."
According to the Hebrew faith, you make the choice to either obey or disobey the law put forth in Torah and thus the individual is responsible for their own sins, not Jesus or anyone else.
Personal responsibility is the way of the Hebrew and that's what works for me.

If Christianity works for you, then good for you and may God smile upon you, but for me it was too much of a contradiction.
I'm still researching the old religions of the Hebrews, and learning new things all the time.
I take Hosea 4:6 to heart:

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because {f} thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing {g} thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by idiffer

thats probably the details in which the devil hides. *
and in comes buddhism with the karma thing. those children were criminals in past lives.

*someone here said "the devil is in the details"...

Ehh I don't remember christianity having past lives. In fact, i have seen pastors say that believing in reincarnation would be expressing a belief in false idols hence going to hell/need to repent/etc. Only heaven and hell is available and its permanent.

In buddhism, murder itself would be negative karma. You're mixing the effects of karma with actions wilfully undertaken. The former is always natural (you get sick, you get hit by a bus, etc), the latter is what gives you karma.

If i recall correctly, even gods would be thrown back into reincarnation when their positive karma is used up and the same with ghosts when their negative karma is used up. I tend to interpret that as debit and credit in accounting terms.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Nonsense. If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, then he is at least partially responsible for all the good and all the evil in the world. Or are you trying to claim only one of those exists?

One explanation for this would be that, from some greater perspective, God is already all-powerful because in addition to God's way inevitably triumphing over evil, the chronological progress of space that we humans perceive is inconsequential since God encompasses the infinite.

So... When there is an earthquake and thousands of people die, many of them children, it's because they went against God's will? They deserved it, is what you're trying to say? Or, heh, what about those kids who're born with some incurable, painful disease that'll kill them in a few years?

If you take karma/original sin as well as the actions of other imperfect beings into account, then yes, the deaths of those children would not be without their underlying cause. In the case of those born with illnesses, for example, some of those can be attributed to the actions of adults, from a smoking/drug-taking mother to atomic bombing.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Nonsense. If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, then he is at least partially responsible for all the good and all the evil in the world. Or are you trying to claim only one of those exists?

Sure, we can say he's responsible. God gave his creations free will, so that we could choose whether or not to follow him.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Ah, yes. And the good of murdering children is...?

The murderer could be doing it for some twisted sense of enjoyment, to protect himself from testimony or something like that, or any of a bunch of other reasons. Joy and self-preservation are both good things to shoot for; this is simply not the right way to do it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So... When there is an earthquake and thousands of people die, many of them children, it's because they went against God's will? They deserved it, is what you're trying to say? Or, heh, what about those kids who're born with some incurable, painful disease that'll kill them in a few years?

You're assuming that earthquakes are "evil." They're not. Yes, it's awful when that sort of thing happens, but you can't say that it's a result of "disobeying God." Death is a terrible thing, but you have to remember two things. First, it's not wrong for God to kill his own creations, any more than it's wrong for us to erase a drawing we've made. The reason that killing is wrong for humans is that by doing so, we're essentially playing God. We don't have that right. Second, everything that happens is a component in God's plan for us. There are bound to be problems, as this is far from a perfect world. However, such things can work together for good in the end. I know this from personal experience: awful things have happened to me in the past, but because of those things, my life has become much better than it would have otherwise. I wouldn't change my past at all.

--

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I must ask you, in which Chapter and what verse did Jesus claim godhood or anything for that matter?

Here's an instance of Jesus explicitly saying that he's God.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10:24-33

The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

In addition, Jesus implies that he is God many times, and never once denies any claims from others that that is what he is. Outside of the Gospels, the Bible makes many mentions of Jesus being God as well. Then, of course, there's the whole resurrection thing, the repeated claims from Jesus of being able to forgive sins, the Transfiguration, the Ascension, the miracles...should I go on?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

I think that's flawed logic, simply because omnipotence/omnipresence/whatever you want to apply to God doesn't actually mean that he can do everything imaginable. Remember the question, "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Well, no, because that question is devoid of logic. It's like asking God to make a four-sided triangle, or to flip a coin so that it lands both heads and tails. There are some things that just can't be done, and being both good and evil is one of those.

Incidentally, the distinction between good and evil is an important one. They're not opposites; instead, evil is simply a twisting of good. Evil actions are ones that provide a "good" result in the wrong manner. It's not wrong to own a TV, for example, but it's definitely wrong to steal one. It's not wrong to have a sense of satisfaction for a job well done, but it is wrong to be prideful about it.

In my mind, God can never be evil, simply by definition. Everything he is and does is good. Evil, then, comes as a result of acting against God's will. Furthermore, there HAS to be the opportunity for that sort of deviation, because otherwise good and evil as concepts wouldn't exist. If there was no such thing as darkness, then light wouldn't be LIGHT; it would just BE. Similarly, if God somehow WAS both good and evil, then those terms would be meaningless. Nothing would be good, and nothing would be bad. It would all just be "God."

Why can't he be both good and evil? To be honest, I think that good and evil are simple terms we humans use to describe what we think of things. A being capable of creating everything that ever is and ever will be, is by definition far removed from being an agent of 'good' and 'evil' in the manner we humans understand. He would have to have created the things we consider 'evil,' though in accordance with my above idea I believe that good and evil are entirely irrelevant to him.

Good and evil objectively don't exist; they are judgments made by human beings. I can consider someone to be completely good while you consider him completely evil. And there's no way either one of us can definitively prove the other wrong, since it's ultimately a subjective issue. At the same time, a single person can be considered very good and very evil for different actions. I don't mean to offend you or anyone else in the thread (just expressing my view), but I really think this whole good vs. evil thing, with god the ultimate good force fighting against evil, is pretty childish. This isn't a comic book. Reality isn't black and white. And a being far beyond human comprehension certainly can't be limited to our foolish methods of judgment.

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

karma/original sin

Karma has no truck with the christian god, so please leave that out of your christian debates. If you were doing a comparision, karma = christian god but without any intelligence = natural force of the universe.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Sure, we can say he's responsible. God gave his creations free will, so that we could choose whether or not to follow him.

I'm pretty sure no baby decided to be born only to suffer and die. Where's their free will?

The murderer could be doing it for some twisted sense of enjoyment, to protect himself from testimony or something like that, or any of a bunch of other reasons. Joy and self-preservation are both good things to shoot for; this is simply not the right way to do it.

Yeah... You're stretching your definition pretty far. You're basically saying "he did things because he wanted to.", and then handing out "right" and "wrong" labels to say whether something's evil or not. It ends up being a pretty useless point of view.

You're assuming that earthquakes are "evil." They're not. Yes, it's awful when that sort of thing happens, but you can't say that it's a result of "disobeying God." Death is a terrible thing, but you have to remember two things. First, it's not wrong for God to kill his own creations, any more than it's wrong for us to erase a drawing we've made.

Yeah, tell me that when I give my drawings "free will", sapience, the works. We're supposed to be God's children. Are you telling me it's alright for parents to murder their kids?

The reason that killing is wrong for humans is that by doing so, we're essentially playing God. We don't have that right.

Why? Or rather, why would God have it?

Second, everything that happens is a component in God's plan for us. There are bound to be problems, as this is far from a perfect world.

A world allegedly made by God. Whatever imperfection you find there, he put it in. Purposely.

However, such things can work together for good in the end.

Yes. Can. They so, so often don't.

I know this from personal experience: awful things have happened to me in the past, but because of those things, my life has become much better than it would have otherwise. I wouldn't change my past at all.

Wow. How incredibly self-centered. Things turned out fine for you, so all is right in the world?

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm pretty sure no baby decided to be born only to suffer and die. Where's their free will?

Perhaps you don't understand what "free will" means. Free will doesn't mean that I can choose for the world to be happiness and rainbows. Free will also doesn't mean that I can choose not to die. If someone shoots me in the head, my free will can't do anything about that.

The point I was making was that free will necessitates a world of suffering. If you don't have free will, you don't have good OR evil, and if you don't have evil, you can't have good.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah... You're stretching your definition pretty far. You're basically saying "he did things because he wanted to.", and then handing out "right" and "wrong" labels to say whether something's evil or not. It ends up being a pretty useless point of view.

Not at all; rather, it seems that you're missing the original point I made, or confusing terms. Death itself is not a sin. Just because a child was killed doesn't mean that a sin has occurred (suppose they were hit by lightning). The evil itself comes into play when that death wasn't the result of natural causes, as with your murder example. The sin here occurs because the murderer's actions were an improper way of fulfilling his motivations.

I'll go back to my "stealing a TV" example. If you buy a TV or you steal it, in both cases your motivations are to own the TV. However, because you chose to fulfill that desire improperly (through theft), it becomes a sin. In the murder case, the murderer has some desire he wanted realized. Why murder was the best outlet in his mind is something I'll never understand, but people don't just kill unless they think they'll get something out of it.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, tell me that when I give my drawings "free will", sapience, the works. We're supposed to be God's children. Are you telling me it's alright for parents to murder their kids?

I'm positive our consciousness doesn't even come CLOSE to whatever would make up God's being, and comparing our actions to his is a futile pursuit. That said, I'll use an example fitting to the different focal point your offered. If a parent tells their toddler to stay out of the street when they're playing, they have an excellent reason for it. The toddler doesn't know what that reason is; all they see is that this great, fantastic flat surface is being unfairly kept from them. I'm sure this seems grossly unfair to the child. "Why can you go in the street and I can't? Why can you use knives and I can't? Why can you drive the car and I can't?"

It's not until the child becomes mentally equal (or at least close) to the parent that these restrictions and unbalanced freedoms become understandable. However, since we'll NEVER be close to God's mind (as long as we're human), things like this will always seem unfair to us.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

A world allegedly made by God. Whatever imperfection you find there, he put it in. Purposely.

Yes; the purpose being that we as humans wouldn't be mindless automatons.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Wow. How incredibly self-centered. Things turned out fine for you, so all is right in the world?

It's called an example. If I substitute "my cousin Bob" for "me" in those two sentences, would that make you feel better?

[RRW]

my religion is islam. but i am not to religious

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Here's an instance of Jesus explicitly saying that he's God.



In addition, Jesus implies that he is God many times, and never once denies any claims from others that that is what he is. Outside of the Gospels, the Bible makes many mentions of Jesus being God as well. Then, of course, there's the whole resurrection thing, the repeated claims from Jesus of being able to forgive sins, the Transfiguration, the Ascension, the miracles...should I go on?

It's not Matthew 10:24-33, it's John 10:24-33.
And no, Jesus doesn't call himself god.

In fact in John 16:25-28 he explains to his disciples what he meant in speaking to them previously (which John recorded in the previous chapters of his testamony):

“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. (26)In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. (27)No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. (28)I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

Jesus couldn't come from God if he is God.
That's a nonsequitur and is impossible even in metaphysics.

Therefore, it is plain that like Moses, Jesus was sent from God(in the spiritual/Kabbalistic sense via Ruach Hakodesh) to teach Torah at a time when the Sadducees had banned it from the common people (since the Sadducees viewed themselves as the direct decendents of the Levites and thus the keepers of Torah).
Therefore, for Jesus to go through the country of Judea and preach Torah would have sent the Sadducees into a tizzy, but would have served the purpose of spreading Torah to every tribe of Israel (and the world).

The Muslims know this as well.
In Quaran 19:30 it states that Isa (Jesus) is "The Slave of God."
He is a servant of the Lord, and thus had abilities beyond normal men, but he was still just a man whose purpose was clearly to spread Torah to the world.
As did Mohammad, Moses, and all the profits before and after Jesus.

Moses performed miracles (the parting of the Red Sea, the plagues of Egypt, the destruction of Core and his disciples at Mount Sinai via earthquake, the Mana falling from heaven, the water springing from a rock in the desert, etc.).
Jesus performed miracles, Daniel performed miracles, Mohammad performed miracles, all are equally great men, but still only men,and not God himself.

This argument (the divinity of Christ) was made centuries ago in what is known as the Disputation of Barcelona in 1263 CE.
Nachimaides was correct in his oral-dissertation against the divinity of Jesus and his being the Hebrew Messanic figure that would lead to the future civilization (world) prophesized of in the Torah.