God's Truth
New member
Because God the most High came as a man.
Jesus is God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Because God the most High came as a man.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Chrestians or Christians?
Chrestians or Christians?
Just a historical/scholarly consideration of the terms 'Chrestos' and 'Christos' -
I would say the original Jewish followers of Jesus were not called 'Christians' until that became a later name given when disciples of Jesus (so called) were recognized as 'Christians' in Antioch.(per Acts recording). There are earlier non-biblical accounts however of early followers of a person named 'Chrestos'(Chrestus), and his followers as 'Chrestians'; 'Chrestos' meaning the 'good', 'righteous' or 'useful' ones. (other teachers, prophets, wise men, initiates were given this title). 'Chirst' or 'christian' on the other hands means 'Anointed' or 'anointed one'. This may indicate that either Jesus or another like him had attained this 'title' and was similar to, or another faction related to the so called 'Christians' (later designated), or that the names were 'confused', one being a rendering of the other.
From the early accounts of both Tacitus and Suetonius about 'Chrestus'....it could be that their accounting may not refer to the historical Jesus but another figure, so these accounts do not necessarily count as evidence for a historical or biblical 'Jesus', this on the grounds of a more objective skeptical secular observation.
The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity
Besides the brief note of some historical/scholarly study on the words 'Chrestian' or 'Christian', sure traditionally followers of Jesus are called 'Christians'. Given that my own experience of so called 'christians' has not been all that attractive, I have no great enthusaism to be enamored over the 'title', but if I am a disciple of Christ,...that may be a more noble appellation. Or heck,...maybe one could be just as well called himself a 'Chrestian',...meaning 'good', 'righteous', 'useful'. One could use this title, just as well, whether or not it refers to the Jesus represented in the gospels or not.
On a deeper metaphysical level, the 'Christ' of 'God' is that light, divinity, anointing within every soul....and all souls aspiring to do 'good', be 'righteous' and 'useful' in service to life, could be called 'chrestians' or 'christians'. Devotees of Jesus or some 'Christ' figure of those times were also called followers of the Way, Nazaroeans, Ebionites, Essenes, Gnostics, Therapeutae , etc.
Chrestians or Christians?
Just a historical/scholarly consideration of the terms 'Chrestos' and 'Christos' -
I would say the original Jewish followers of Jesus were not called 'Christians' until that became a later name given when disciples of Jesus (so called) were recognized as 'Christians' in Antioch.(per Acts recording). There are earlier non-biblical accounts however of early followers of a person named 'Chrestos'(Chrestus), and his followers as 'Chrestians'; 'Chrestos' meaning the 'good', 'righteous' or 'useful' ones. (other teachers, prophets, wise men, initiates were given this title). 'Chirst' or 'christian' on the other hands means 'Anointed' or 'anointed one'. This may indicate that either Jesus or another like him had attained this 'title' and was similar to, or another faction related to the so called 'Christians' (later designated), or that the names were 'confused', one being a rendering of the other.
From the early accounts of both Tacitus and Suetonius about 'Chrestus'....it could be that their accounting may not refer to the historical Jesus but another figure, so these accounts do not necessarily count as evidence for a historical or biblical 'Jesus', this on the grounds of a more objective skeptical secular observation.
The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity
Besides the brief note of some historical/scholarly study on the words 'Chrestian' or 'Christian', sure traditionally followers of Jesus are called 'Christians'. Given that my own experience of so called 'christians' has not been all that attractive, I have no great enthusaism to be enamored over the 'title', but if I am a disciple of Christ,...that may be a more noble appellation. Or heck,...maybe one could be just as well called himself a 'Chrestian',...meaning 'good', 'righteous', 'useful'. One could use this title, just as well, whether or not it refers to the Jesus represented in the gospels or not.
On a deeper metaphysical level, the 'Christ' of 'God' is that light, divinity, anointing within every soul....and all souls aspiring to do 'good', be 'righteous' and 'useful' in service to life, could be called 'chrestians' or 'christians'. Devotees of Jesus or some 'Christ' figure of those times were also called followers of the Way, Nazaroeans, Ebionites, Essenes, Gnostics, Therapeutae , etc.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
All is ONE........
All is ONE........
One must stretch the bounderies to consider the omnipresence of 'God', so that even if Jesus is SOMEHOW 'God' Almighty, he has been remodulated or configured in human form, so that this personality named Jesus, can still communicate and pray to the Greater Universal Father Presence, who is Infinite Spirit, and incorporeal, everywhere present.
Stretching 'God' out in as many forms and figurations as possible allows a Trinitarian, modalistic or any other view of the Godhead free reign, after all....'God' is the one omnipresent reality anyways,....all that exists are but extensions, individuations, creative expressions of The ONE
All is ONE........
One must stretch the bounderies to consider the omnipresence of 'God', so that even if Jesus is SOMEHOW 'God' Almighty, he has been remodulated or configured in human form, so that this personality named Jesus, can still communicate and pray to the Greater Universal Father Presence, who is Infinite Spirit, and incorporeal, everywhere present.
Stretching 'God' out in as many forms and figurations as possible allows a Trinitarian, modalistic or any other view of the Godhead free reign, after all....'God' is the one omnipresent reality anyways,....all that exists are but extensions, individuations, creative expressions of The ONE
TestedandTried
New member
Most definitely I believe Jesus is God...
Romans 9:5:
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
How about you, are you Jesus' follower?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Yes, but I'm also continuing research into Jesus, and this includes all views, historicity, records, nuances, etc about this personality. This includes scholarship bringing into question whether this person even really existed! - yes...this may sound far fetched, but a mythicist view of Jesus is becoming more a possibility within Academia, as a mythological character that later got historicized in the gospel narratives. Asides from questioning the historical Jesus and whether or not we can prove he existed, all we have are the sayings ascribed to him. SURE,...we can gobble up Jesus sayings all day and put the good teachings into practice,...if they are good, and some do have true ethical/moral value, even some wisdom here and there,...its our practice of the teachings and their inward value and results that matters. - thats what counts at the end of the day.
Do you follow anyone else beside Jesus?
Lon
Well-known member
Good question, if sincere. Read John 1:1 Same question "was with God" AND "was God"?
jaybird
New member
when He came as a man did He cease existing as the Most High?
TestedandTried
New member
My community college "History of Western Civilization" textbook records the life of Jesus....just for starts!
God's Truth
New member
There are three. When God came as a Son of man, He was also invisible in heaven in unapproachable light.
jaybird
New member
Son on earth, invisible in heaven, either way they are still the Most High. so again, who would the Most High pray to the Most High? does the Most High pray to someone when He is in heaven?
TestedandTried
New member
Jesus was called Immanuel...God with us1 His Father being the Holy Spirit/His mother of course, Mary...human. Hence the term Godman. Romans 1 points to the dual nature of Jesus:
Romans 1:1-4:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Christ's life on earth was a step of humiliation which He willingly took upon Himself...
Philippians 2:6-11:
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped;
7
but made himself nothing
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Hebrews explains Christ's superiority to all the angels and Moses.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Of course meshak, I know where you're going with this,...no one is doubting the centrality and unique and special leadership of Jesus, as our spiritual wayshower, anointed messenger, or revelation of 'God'
However, today....we all follow and respect persons who serve as exemplars, teachers, innovators of the vision of goodness, truth and beauty, whose source is 'God'. Note that all in the OT were following various prophets, priests, teachers,...whoever at THAT TIME was representing God.
But back to the subject here,....we follow Jesus because Jesus represents God. - the argument here is doctrinal, since a Unitarian does not see the need or necessity of Jesus being 'God' himself, to be a true and worthy representative of God.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Yet this does not necessitate Jesus being 'God Almighty' for these 'divine Christ' or 'Celestial Jesus' models of Jesus show his 'divinity' yes,...so Jesus would do just as well as being a 'deity' (lower case) or 'archangel' of some kind (always subordinate to God), begotten or created by God (Jesus was both as a 'son'), and this would not in any way take anything away from our veneration of Jesus or his power to save, enlighten or liberate, thru his life, service and example to us.
TestedandTried
New member
By definition it takes away from Christ's title "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" and thus our veneration of Him would be quite changed and lowered. If one would go with some of your suggested other positions you also pervert the Word. "I and the Father are One" or Revelation 1...the First and the Last.
There was a Day set in which Christ became the Son...per Psalm 2:7 (this is the Day of Christ's physical birth). This was the initiation of God's salvation plan which He promises back in Genesis 3:15.
He humbled Himself for us; he loves us that much. Will you now in return love and revere Him less due to this show of love (His humiliation for us)? In effect that is what your suggestion does or says.
And, again, He is superior to the angels per Hebrew 1.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The methodology of historic probability and the means by which we determine such are being revisited and re-challenged by scholars such as Richard Carrier, Ralph Lataster, etc. as touched upon here. While the 'Mythicist' view of Christ is a fringe view, it is becoming more accepted and tenable as a possible view of the Jesus story,...namely that a mythological or celestial Jesus as spoke of in Paul's gospel was later historicized, and made into a human character with its own story and legendary as depicted in the gospels, which are regarded as being at least partially religious fiction and literary devices having allegorical significance.
I will be doing a review on Lataster's boook when I finish it. Bart Erhman's books are good too, however his latest book on the historicity of Jesus have been contested by some, which shows the fact that historicity of Jesus attested to by accounts outside of the bible itself, particular in the 1st century is pretty sparse.
TestedandTried
New member
Heaven forbid anyone attempt to prove I lived, outside my family, cuz I'm certain I will not have been cited in anyone's book outside that sphere! Ha!
The Bible is miraculous and is accepted as such by those in the faith. They testify of Christ and no human book is going to supercede or trump the credentials of the Scriptures!
Most professionals are trying very hard to make a name for themselves...word of caution.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Allegory........
Allegory........
We're talking about the greatest person who is assumed or attestted to have walked the planet, not just any joe blow.
That may be so, but it could still be that Jesus was a mythological figure that later got historicized, and the gospel were created as biographical narratives to envision or articulate a human Jesus. The gospels are not eye witness accounts (and are anonymous), and they were written decades after his assumed incarnation, some time after Paul's letters,....letters which tell very little of Jesus earthly life, as Paul focuses on a spiritual or celestial Jesus figure anyways. Sure, you can get all kinds of spiritual insights from the allegories of scripture written by various human authors under different degrees of inspiration or mere creative fiction,....we can also see this in the vast libraries of religious literature and inspired fiction the world over. Note Paul got his gospel from hearing a voice and seeing a light he believed was 'Christ', and further got his 'authority' from his OWN personal revelations and allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, he got them from no man (he boasts), which further seperated him from the original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem.
I'm just saying there's alot more one discovers when researching deeper into these issues. The story of Jesus, and even more so the BELIEF that he is God Almighty (an even more fantastical assumption) might be seen as incredible to some outside of the faith. This is all mind you subjective, in the realm of the imagination, what you CHOOSE to believe or dismiss, or entertain to one degree or another, its all relative. One absolute reality exists which we may call 'God' or 'Deity', while all else is relative, speculative and conceptual at best.
Allegory........
We're talking about the greatest person who is assumed or attestted to have walked the planet, not just any joe blow.
That may be so, but it could still be that Jesus was a mythological figure that later got historicized, and the gospel were created as biographical narratives to envision or articulate a human Jesus. The gospels are not eye witness accounts (and are anonymous), and they were written decades after his assumed incarnation, some time after Paul's letters,....letters which tell very little of Jesus earthly life, as Paul focuses on a spiritual or celestial Jesus figure anyways. Sure, you can get all kinds of spiritual insights from the allegories of scripture written by various human authors under different degrees of inspiration or mere creative fiction,....we can also see this in the vast libraries of religious literature and inspired fiction the world over. Note Paul got his gospel from hearing a voice and seeing a light he believed was 'Christ', and further got his 'authority' from his OWN personal revelations and allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, he got them from no man (he boasts), which further seperated him from the original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem.
I'm just saying there's alot more one discovers when researching deeper into these issues. The story of Jesus, and even more so the BELIEF that he is God Almighty (an even more fantastical assumption) might be seen as incredible to some outside of the faith. This is all mind you subjective, in the realm of the imagination, what you CHOOSE to believe or dismiss, or entertain to one degree or another, its all relative. One absolute reality exists which we may call 'God' or 'Deity', while all else is relative, speculative and conceptual at best.