On Jesus's views when looked from outside of Christianity

On Jesus's views when looked from outside of Christianity

I make this as per my theology.

The Father and I are one.

At the ultimate level, there is only the Father, and therefore all living beings are non-different from the Father.

But at the same time, in a context where two things are different, there one could never be the same as the Father.
In fact, even if you collect all things together, they could never be the Father.
This is because the Father is beyond attributes.

Only the ultimate reality of all things could be the Father.
Jesus did not deny it here. In fact, the other verse affirms it.

"He who is within you is greater than he who is in this world."

He who is within you refers to the soul who is within your material body. As per my theology, the soul of man
is non-different from the soul of God.

But the world is an illusion, and the material body is subject to the conditions of the material world.

On Crucifixion

The purpose of having faith in God is to surrender your Karma to him, to avoid rebirth.

The nature of the world is such that, unless you trust in God as the source of the world, if you try to live in the material
world by dealing with its conditions, for every change you make, entropy will have the upper hand.

A reason God won't simply support you is because first you have to recognize the existence of God and surrender yourselves to
him anyways. Until then, you will continue to keep doing mistakes. But once you realize God and surrender to him, no matter what
your life is like, you do not recognize the suffering. That is, it will seem like that to the atheists, but not to you. Because
you will be under a different mindset, and that's all that affects your perception, while the atheists would continue to say that
you are suffering. And then they may even say that you are deluding yourself to escape your suffering. But their only basis for
this argument is their ignorance, and they can't even do some proper philosophy or read religious books, since they already
accepted materialism as a dogma before mocking theists, under the idea that all theists are dogmatists, just because some theists
in the world have been dogmatists.

Anyways, so since Jesus has identified God within himself, he can speak with authority. And since he had performed meditation
and acquired the right qualities, he could keep that state of mind. That is, even the Jews accepted that he had no material sin,
and that meant he was disciplined, and that would mean he had achieved the qualities required for self-realization.

Thereafter, he could easily ask people to surrender to him entirely, stating that he had paid the wages of sin, and that in doing
so, they would attain Paradise. Because if he had not spoken with this authority, he would not be able to change the prevailing
view which mandated that God would allow the wages of sin to be paid for so easily.

However, in Bhagavad Geetha, Krishna easily said this without sacrificing himself, because

To Reddit:

In Bhagavad Geetha, Krishna, who is God Incarnate, said that you must surrender to him, and the wages of cause and effect will be carried by him.
Since he is the creator of the world, he alone is the one who has to take it away.

He took birth in human form to make up for human sins.
And he died

Further he said, whenever sin gets out of control, he will take birth again.
This is as opposed to God coming to destroy the world with all the people in it.

Theologically, all people are made of God's own material, under God's power of illusion, and their souls are pure.
Note that "soul" in Hinduism is not the same as "soul" in Christianity. An individual soul is the God's own soul, masked by illusion of the material body.
Therefore a soul cannot carry any attributes, and is always free. But the portion that carries the weight of actions is the "mental faculties," which is
referred to as the Sookshma Shareera (Subtle Body) - which is comprised of "the intellect," "the ego" and "the mind."

The world of a certain nature, but it is the mind that shapes our experience of it. If we do bad actions, and do not repent and or make up for it after realizing
it, then we will do it again later, and it will be harder to correct each time (like hysteresis). Then, if the other person who you affected did not surrender
himself to God, then he would act negatively out of his misfortune on to someone else, and this cycle would continue, until what you put out comes back to you.
Even if they forgave you, they could only do so because they are kind, and if they tolerate it too much, their kindness would run out, and they would eventually
turn evil, unless they find God later.

But God incarnate is not bound be the material body, and only assumes the material form for his stated goals.

The universe comes into being in the eternal present, since God is beyond time and space, while the time and space that exists in this world is only an
illusion, much like axes on a graph.

The bread is my body, the wine is my blood.

Bible verses stating "Son of Man"

In Hebrew, both the words "man" and "son of man" were the same, as all people were referred to by the term "son of Adam" or "son of man."

In Hebrew, the term for "son" was "Bar" and by that, "son of Adam" was "Ben Adam" and "son of man" was "Ben Enosh."
When Aramaic (Syriac) became popular in Judah, the language took the term "Ben Enosh" as "Bar Enash," while the term "Bar Adam" never made it.

So there could be no separate terms such as "man" and "Son of Man" in Hebrew / Aramaic.

But in Greek, the the language had separate terms, where "son" was "huious", "of" was "tou" and "man" as "anthropos."
So "son of man" would be "huios tou anthropos," while "man" was "anthropos."

This means this distinction could never be a concept among the Jews, and it also proves that ideas are culture-dependent.