Jesus is God

[freelight]

Putting Jesus in the hot seat.......

Putting Jesus in the hot seat.......

The Jews had the same attitude towards Jesus, their minds were seared by the false sense of sacredness of the scripture written and redacted by the priest of former days.

It is because Jesus was, and will forever be, a duel nature personality on earth, one can find him speaking from two different perspectives while in the flesh.

After he resurrected himself, he spoke in the singular, by divine right.

Yes, when we consider Jesus having both a 'human' and 'divine' nature, and this is the wonderful mystery, conundrum and paradox we face, which church councils and theologians have pondered and debated over for centuries. Obviously from my POV...a Unitarian view is quite logical from within its own 'relational context', as well as a Trinitarian one (there are also different views which include aspects of both),...which presents a different 'arrangement' relationally,...and that's all we have here as far as the details and dynamic are concerned, besides the fundamental question of "in what way is Jesus divine?" - this compounds further into the question of how Jesus the Man is 'related' or 'joined' with this 'divinity',....and then the whole host of debated questions of just how much of Jesus is 'human' and how much is 'God'? - we dive into 'technical abstracts' :sherlock: - here the fun begins..... :surf:

In truth however, does it really matter how we 'slice & dice' Jesus nature, or what 'ratio' of humanity or divinity we give him? - since we cant prove any of this anyways :think: - as to how much this might affect our reception and practice of the religion he taught us to live...well that's a more pertinent inquiry.

And still the ole Unitarian/Trinitarian debate continues...and to what avail? Which is why I take a more 'transcendentalist' approach to this, over-riding any 'lock-down' on a dogmatic conclusion here, accepting the highest attributes and qualities of BOTH Jesus 'humanity' and 'divinity' - I'm quite happy allowing for BOTH to be fully potentialized and perfected, and allow the divine mystery of how Jesus (as both Son of Man and Son of God) is the perfect union of both. (note that will be enough to say, before any 'speculating' ensues, which fills our theological bowls with alphabet soup)


In-joy!




pj

 

[freelight]

Play with words..........

Play with words..........

After he resurrected himself, he spoke in the singular, by divine right.

It is apparent in the gospel of John anyways, that Jesus did speak singularly by 'divine right' of his ABILITY to raise himself up. One could argue it was the Father who did all the work, but if we are to take things 'literally',...well....you know how that goes




pj

 

[freelight]

Respect the divine company.............

Respect the divine company.............

Since almost one third of the people are not trins, there has to be a good reason for that.

the reason for that is that they have searched scripture more deeply and thoroughly and used common sense and logic to reach another conclusion.

God designed the human brain to think and to reason and to use evidence to logically and sensibly reach conclusions.

Yes,...but I gather there have been some brilliant theologians/philosphers who have accept some kind of 'trinitarian' concept of Deity, and have still allowed for the full relational-distinctions of persons, so that there really isn't much of a problem in accepting that the Son is NOT the Father, and vice-versa,....of course the metaphysics involved might pose a problem to some, but figuratively speaking things are cohesive given the right 'metaphysical interpretation' or sensed 'nuance' involving the relationships of the divine persons,....but hey,....THEY are all 'God' anyways, so whats all the fuss?

Giggles



pj

 

[Caino]

It is apparent in the gospel of John anyways, that Jesus did speak singularly by 'divine right' of his ABILITY to raise himself up. One could argue it was the Father who did all the work, but if we are to take things 'literally',...well....you know how that goes




pj

Seeing how Jesus said specifically that the Father gave him the decision to lay down his life and the power to take it up again, and he did both of those things, what's parabolic about that?

 

[THall]

Since almost one third of the people are not trins, there has to be a good reason for that.

.

And there will always be more trins than non trins.
That wide gate is wide for a reason.

The narrow gate does not have to be wide, few will............

 

[oatmeal]

Yes,...but I gather there have been some brilliant theologians/philosphers who have accept some kind of 'trinitarian' concept of Deity, and have still allowed for the full relational-distinctions of persons, so that there really isn't much of a problem in accepting that the Son is NOT the Father, and vice-versa,....of course the metaphysics involved might pose a problem to some, but figuratively speaking things are cohesive given the right 'metaphysical interpretation' or sensed 'nuance' involving the relationships of the divine persons,....but hey,....THEY are all 'God' anyways, so whats all the fuss?

Giggles

pj

Since we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, Mark 12:29-30

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

it would behoove us to determine who this "Lord our God is one Lord" is.

That way we would serve God only. Matthew 4:10

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Therefore, thinking believers want to know

does "son of God" = God?

Does "son of God" mean the same thing as "God"?

The scriptural answer is no. The two are not identical, they are similar, but the differences between them dispel any notion of identity.

 

[Caino]

Since we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, Mark 12:29-30

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

it would behoove us to determine who this "Lord our God is one Lord" is.

That way we would serve God only. Matthew 4:10

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Therefore, thinking believers want to know

does "son of God" = God?

Does "son of God" mean the same thing as "God"?

The scriptural answer is no. The two are not identical, they are similar, but the differences between them dispel any notion of identity.

The I AM is manifest in the plural.

 

[aikido7]

Jesus never specifically said he was God or even divine. In fact, he said "Why do you call me good? Only God is good!"

Those who see the story of Jesus through the lens of John's gospel will find ample theology in which Jesus is exalted as God by the author and his own community. But the plain truth is that Jesus' unique speaking style is never used in the New Testament as referring to himself as divine.

Again, plenty of his followers concluded as much (although some did not appear to).

But the fact that Jesus was human is a fact of history. Jesus as God or the Son of God are faith statements. There's a difference.

 

[THall]

The I AM is manifest in the plural.

Think man.......where was Jesus when he taught
the disciples to pray????????????? On EARTH!



"Our Father, who art in Heaven........"

 

[Caino]

Think man.......where was Jesus when he taught
the disciples to pray????????????? On EARTH!



"Our Father, who art in Heaven........"

I do think, he IS our Father, we are all Sons of God. Jesus is a creator Son of a much higher order of Sons of God. Under Jesus there are descending Sons of relative divinity, powers and authority such as Satan who betrayed his sacred trust and fooled the whole world. Man is the last link in the chain of descending Sons before the animal.

 

[freelight]

Meta-tation..............

Meta-tation..............

The I AM is manifest in the plural.

Yes,....'God' the One, expresses, distributes, manifests, reflects himself in the plurality of persons and individual units of consciousness

The reality behind the "I" of consciousness itself,...is 'God',...but there are differences, diversities and multiplicities of personalities that spring from One Father-Personality, who is the Source of them all




pj

 

[StanJ]

Yes,....'God' the One, expresses, distributes, manifests, reflects himself in the plurality of persons and individual units of consciousness
The reality behind the "I" of consciousness itself,...is 'God',...but there are differences, diversities and multiplicities of personalities that spring from One Father-Personality, who is the Source of them all
pj

The I in I AM is not the ID you think of or understand freelight. It is NOT alone, on it's own, it comes with AM...I AM. Not I was or I will be or anything but I AM. I was simple enough for Moses because He is to complex to understand except for the simplicity of His own self assessment.

 

[Pierac]

The I AM is manifest in the plural.

So... your saying... If I say... I AM tired of your stupid post... It's plural because everyone agrees?

I have to think on that one... :think:

:chuckle:
Paul

 

[aikido7]

There is Jesus--and he referred to God as the Father in third-person terms. And also said tellingly "Why call ME good? Only GOD is good!"

Then came the later exalted terms like Lord, God, Son of God that were actually established in history much later than the crucifixion.

The Gospel of John appears to me to contain both traditions, for John has Jesus say "I and the Father are One" but also asserts Jesus said "The Father is greater than I."

We have to figure out where we stand.

Because both these different traditions are in the Bible, that to me means I have to take them both seriously as a Christian.

I guess I am somehow able to hold both discrepancies in my mind at the same time without feeling alarmed or threatened.

Feel free to call me a loser or a blasphemer. I can't blame most traditional Christians for thinking so. I just think they are dead wrong. But that's just me.

 

[Caino]

So... your saying... If I say... I AM tired of your stupid post... It's plural because everyone agrees?

I have to think on that one... :think:

:chuckle:
Paul

No, it just means you can't think outside of indoctrination.

 

[Caino]

There is Jesus--and he referred to God as the Father in third-person terms. And also said tellingly "Why call ME good? Only GOD is good!"

Then came the later exalted terms like Lord, God, Son of God that were actually established in history much later than the crucifixion.

The Gospel of John appears to me to contain both traditions, for John has Jesus say "I and the Father are One" but also asserts Jesus said "The Father is greater than I."

We have to figure out where we stand.

Because both these different traditions are in the Bible, that to me means I have to take them both seriously as a Christian.

I guess I am somehow able to hold both discrepancies in my mind at the same time without feeling alarmed or threatened.

Feel free to call me a loser or a blasphemer. I can't blame most traditional Christians for thinking so. I just think they are dead wrong. But that's just me.

Both vantage points make sense if God the Son incarnate as man subject to the will of the Father to live the life of Man, was in fact a duel nature personality. Jesus became aware of his pre-existence as he matured. He was able to self limit his divinity.

When Jesus said "why does though call me good, none is good but God" he spoke as humble man rebuffing the suggestion of self conscious human ego exaltation. At another time he allowed himself to be worshipped and anointed with precious oils.

It would only be a conflict if Jesus was either human or divine but since he was both it makes sense.

 

[oatmeal]

The I AM is manifest in the plural.

Nice sidestep!

too bad you cannot answer my questions.

 

[aikido7]

Both vantage points make sense if God the Son incarnate as man subject to the will of the Father to live the life of Man, was in fact a duel nature personality. Jesus became aware of his pre-existence as he matured. He was able to self limit his divinity.

When Jesus said "why does though call me good, none is good but God" he spoke as humble man rebuffing the suggestion of self conscious human ego exaltation. At another time he allowed himself to be worshipped and anointed with precious oils.

It would only be a conflict if Jesus was either human or divine but since he was both it makes sense.

The Roman Empire and the bishops of the church decided on Jesus as both man and God because it was a compromise between different groups of early Christians.

The Emperor Constantine basically called many bishops from that part of the world to take part in the conference. A lavish banquet was served to them in the palace but the meeting was surrounded by armed guards.

They were basically told--as I understand it--not to leave the meeting until they had worked out something that would appeal to both sides.

I cannot help contrasting the simple meals and celebrations of Jesus with this forced meeting of the early Christians.

As a rational and modern human being, the Jesus as both God and man at the same time makes no sense to me.

It is nonsensical, even though I can see the mythic truth of such a theological formulation. I accept both the actual Jesus as well as the mythic Christ so the theology is still meaningful to me.

I just cannot take it literally.

 

[Caino]

Since we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, Mark 12:29-30

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

it would behoove us to determine who this "Lord our God is one Lord" is.

That way we would serve God only. Matthew 4:10

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Therefore, thinking believers want to know

does "son of God" = God?

Does "son of God" mean the same thing as "God"?

The scriptural answer is no. The two are not identical, they are similar, but the differences between them dispel any notion of identity.

I will answer, I thought you were talking to Freelight.

I think a great stumbling block in the evolution of thought about the One God that the Israelites finally arrived at is the very definition of what God Is. Man tends to think of God as a form of a man, old guy, grey beard, sitting on a throne. Basically a concept derived from our Kings and Chiefs.


* Yes, Son of God equals God, a deity, but not absolute I AM. The Son is conscious of being a Son in the same way we are concious of being children of God.

* The Son of God does Not mean the same thing as God absolute.

 

[Caino]

The Roman Empire and the bishops of the church decided on Jesus as both man and God because it was a compromise between different groups of early Christians.

The Emperor Constantine basically called many bishops from that part of the world to take part in the conference. A lavish banquet was served to them in the palace but the meeting was surrounded by armed guards.

They were basically told--as I understand it--not to leave the meeting until they had worked out something that would appeal to both sides.

I cannot help contrasting the simple meals and celebrations of Jesus with this forced meeting of the early Christians.

As a rational and modern human being, the Jesus as both God and man at the same time makes no sense to me.

It is nonsensical, even though I can see the mythic truth of such a theological formulation. I accept both the actual Jesus as well as the mythic Christ so the theology is still meaningful to me.

I just cannot take it literally.

The miracle of the divine Son becoming Human is understood only on paradise, we aren't expected to understand it.

We can see the divine and human sides of Jesus from the story, no Athanasius or Arius needed.