Could God become man?

[dattaswami1]

Originally Posted by paul

I think this is even an insulting question, not to Christians but to God.

God is after all God, if it was His will to become even one of us, then surely as God it is possible.
And if we say not, then isn't us who would limit God as being God, and limit Him to mans limit, and maybe mans mind.

I have heared some say God could not become man, for who would rule the world.
As if God has to be in one place at one time, as a human's limits.

But if we pray to God, many of us in different countries, and surely there must be many of us praying at even the exact same time, does God only hear one single person.
Is God only in one single part of the world at a time, only with one person at a time.

I beleive one God, could be ruler of the world, and come to us as one of us if He pleased.
I beleive it would not be an impossibilty for God, to both be a man, and God.
Being both the man on earth, and God in Heaven at the exact same time, I don't think that an impossibility for God

It may be a hard thing to comprehend, but if God wanted to become one of us, to be born of a virgin, to come into this world through a woman, to be born as all humans are in human form, to live among us, and to even prepared to die the most brutal death, as if even a criminal, spat on and humiliated as if even a blasphemer of God, a madman even.
Then could He not, if He so wished to do so?

God-in-Flesh:


Bible says that Jesus is the God in flesh, but Gita says for a Hindu,
That Krishna is the God in flesh, let us analyse both these views?
I am not touching Buddhism and Islam in this topic because Islam believes
That Mohammad is not God in flesh and He was only messenger of God.
Buddhism keeps silent on the God and no question of God in flesh for them.
If the Bible told that Krishna was not God in flesh or if Gita told that
Jesus was not God in flesh, then both Bible and Gita are valid.
When the scriptures does not mention like this in complete version
How can you interpret your own scripture in the other way?
More over all of you whether Christians or Hindus have to accept
The concept of one God, there is no other alternative way in this.
You say that your God created this entire world and Hindus say that
Their God created this same entire world, unfortunately my dear friends!
I do not find two worlds and I find only one world! Now tell me

Whether this single entire world is created by Christian God or Hindu God?
One of you or both should be wrong and in that case who is wrong?
Either you should have two separate worlds or you should have single God.
If both the scriptures are wrong and both Gods did not create this Universe
Then the vote goes to Science, which says that the world exists by itself.
They say that no body created this world and it is self-existent.
Since both are sacred scriptures, let us solve this problem by analysis.
If you are rigid of your own scripture, I am not touching you at all.
If one is rigid where is the place for logical analysis and judgement?
In the court if one party says that what ever it says is the only truth
What is the necessity of the court, advocates, arguments and judgement?
If you leave rigidity and become flexible to accept the truth
After analysis only, you are most welcome to my Universal Spirituality.

Even in the small worldly matters, we apply open mind and analysis,
I wonder why you are not applying the same open mind and analysis
In such most important spiritual knowledge which decides everything.
The word Jesus stands for Human Incarnation and similarly the word Krishna.
In scriptures, we have to take the internal meanings and not simple external
Meanings for the sacred words, each word is ocean of divine knowledge.
Bible says that the lamb will come in red robe, here what is the meaning
For the word lamb? Is it simple animal with four legs and one tail.
Does this mean that Jesus will come again as animal? Here you say
That the word lamb stands for the Lord who is pure and innocent
Like the lamb, at one place you take the inner meaning and at other place
You take the external meaning! Therefore, the word Jesus means God in flesh,
Which means that the Lord comes in human form with blood and flesh.

This is a great concept, which Jesus tried to establish to the devotees.
Till then the Islam believed only in the formless God called Allah.
Islam does not treat Mohammad as God in flesh even today.
Jesus told that He and His father are one and the same, what does this mean?
Here the word father does not mean Joseph, the husband of His mother Mary.
If you take the meaning of the word of father in the external sense only
It is impossible because two human beings cannot be one and the same.
That Creator is indicated by the word father and human incarnation by the word Jesus
Both are one and the same since God pervaded all over the human incarnation.
If you take the meaning of the word Jesus as a particular human body only,
Then the meaning of the word father should also mean another particular human body.
In that case both the human bodies cannot be one and the same because
We are seeing the father and the son represented by two separate human bodies.
Similarly Jesus told that one could reach His father only through Him.

This again should mean that nobody could see or meet Joseph without Jesus.
But it is not so because several people have seen Joseph even before Jesus was born.
You are taking the inner meaning for the word father and say that father means God.
But for the word Jesus you are taking a particular human body only.
This is not justified and even a child will contradict this different approach.
When it is said that Jesus will baptise by fire, does it mean Jesus will sprinkle fire?
In such case the baptized person will be burnt with fire, therefore, the word fire
Means Knowledge as said in Gita “Jnanaagnih”, moreover if you stick the word
Jesus to a particular human body only and if you say that Jesus exists even now,
Please show Me Jesus as the same human body to My eyes also, in the past
When Jesus was alive everyone could show Jesus as human body to anyone.
Whether a believer or a non-believer saw Jesus as human body in the past.

[paul]

And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins.
- The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 1:21

The name Jesus is from the Hebrew language, it gives the meaning even in this verse, it means to save or deliver, in the context "for He shall save His people from their sins."

I don't know much at all about Hinduism, but would very much like to learn.
I have a little too much to learn at the moment, and haven't yet been able to study Hinduism.

You talk of Krishna, as God in the flesh, and make the similarity to Jesus.

What do the Hindu scriptures say of him:
What does the word Krishna mean in it's original language?
Does he have a geneology, who was his mother and father?

The Bible itself says little about Mary, but there are ancient Christian writings which give an account of her parents, her birth and life.

Was Krishna just a vision to one man, or did he live amongst people?
What was his life?

Could you maybe give me a little brief detial from your scripture and maybe a little from tradition if needs be about Krishna?

Thanks.
Paul

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

I agree they are no intellectual lightweights, that is why it baffles me ... I think it lame, you think it deep ...

Because I think the question highlights not so much whether a thing is true or not, as whether someone has pre-determined in their own minds whether a thing is true or not.

From the discussions we have had, I always appear to come down on believing Scripture to say what it means, and mean what it says ... you always appear to be looking for the caveat, the logical opt-out, a means of explaining-it-away, a reason not to believe?

Originally Posted by wil

So you don't believe G!d's presence to be within you?

I do, but the question is how?

I believe we have to consider what we mean by the term 'within' — I suggest this means a sense of God, in the same way we have a sense of right, of beauty, or goodness, what the philosophers call the transcendentals ... but that does not mean we possess those qualities, nor that we are, by nature, Divine ... rather I believe we are created in the 'image and likeness' (Genesis 1:26) of the Divine, but that does not mean the same as, in substance or essence.

We are neither substantially Divine, nor are we essentially Divine ... so the Presence may indeed be within, but it is no part of the self in the sense that so many use it so casually. Furthermore, it is not something at the self's disposal, but rather it is a calling on the self to dispose itself accordingly.

(Too often among Christians this idea of 'the divine within' becomes an excuse for what Pope Benedict referred to as the inherent auto eroticisme, or nihilism, of westernised Buddhist doctrine — it becomes a self-orientating dictum, rather than orienting the self to something other — it is timeless wisdom according to the cult of the ego.)

The Presence within, or rather the Presence that makes itself known to the individual, which is an interior operation (hence 'within') was always a gift, a grace, something given, something superadded to our nature, and which was lost, when we dis-graced ourselves, by seeking to become the light of our own existence, to order the Kosmos according to themselves. Thus we lost our primordial 'innocence', our primordial illumination or enlightenment, when the 'inward eye' became closed:
"And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons." Genesis 3:7

"That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not."
John 1:9-10

+++

'The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for: "The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator." ' (Gaudiam et Spes, 19.1)
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 27.

I believe we are created with a sense of the supernatural, an innate sense of the Transcendant, and ultimately the transcendance of Being ... this was implanted in man when he was created 'in the image and likeness' ...

Man does not need to know God to comprehend the supernatural, but the idea of a Personal God is something God reveals to man (man can theorise such an idea, but cannot argue for it, other than from the data of Revelation — a Personal God transcends the 'God of the Philosophers' who can only argue from ontology). The knowledge of a Personal God is not objective data, but rather a taste of beatitude, of living in the life of God, and this is the life of Grace, the Presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul, by which man's salvation is worked.

The idea of Salvation, upon which Christianity turns, rests upon the idea of grace, Grace signifies the activity of the Holy Spirit, to effect the redemption from sin through Christ and leads to the eternal destiny of the Beatific Vision of the Father.

This was why the Fathers hold that the Spirit reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Because I think the question highlights not so much whether a thing is true or not, as whether someone has pre-determined in their own minds whether a thing is true or not.

Namaste Thomas,

To refresh, the statement that is so deep is... What if it were true? My question in regards to it is doesn't that apply to the Koran, the Tanakh, as well as the Bible...isn't it just as forceful with any postulate? Therefor to me...it is weak, lame. I'd like you to tell me how if someone said the same to you about the Koran how you'd deny it there, yet accept it with the bible??

Originally Posted by thomas

From the discussions we have had, I always appear to come down on believing Scripture to say what it means, and mean what it says ... you always appear to be looking for the caveat, the logical opt-out, a means of explaining-it-away, a reason not to believe?

I'm already a believer Thomas and not going anywhere. The difference is simple, we believe it means something different...nothing new here, hence all the variations, versions, interpretations and denominations....if we all believed the same thing we'd have consensus on it all!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

To refresh, the statement that is so deep is... What if it were true? My question in regards to it is doesn't that apply to the Koran, the Tanakh, as well as the Bible...isn't it just as forceful with any postulate?

Yes it is. The question then is can you accept all of them as true, or none, or some, and if so, why, and how? The same applies to Richard Dawkins ... Jacob Needleman ... G.I. Gurdjieff ... the Theosophical Society ... various Christian denominations ... spiritualist movements ... empirical rationalists ... athiests ... agnostics ... monists ... pantheists ... panentheists .... pagans ... somewhere one draws the line — the point is often we do not question where and why we draw it.

Originally Posted by wil

Therefor to me ... it is weak, lame. I'd like you to tell me how if someone said the same to you about the Koran how you'd deny it there, yet accept it with the bible??

Because I can argue the Bible against the Koran ...

Originally Posted by wil

I'm already a believer Thomas and not going anywhere.

Then you have perforce decided certain things, which exclude other things ... and all the question asks is, are your suppostitions for inclusion or rejection founded on your own opinion or the testimony to hand?

Originally Posted by wil

The difference is simple, we believe it means something different...nothing new here, hence all the variations, versions, interpretations and denominations...

Far from simple ... the question is why do we believe in something different? And from the perspective of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, the difference lies in the degree to which the believer is inclined to interpret Scripture according to his or her own presuppositions.

Originally Posted by wil

If we all believed the same thing we'd have consensus on it all!

And we would be One Church, One Body in Christ ... speed the day!
(Or is it more important that our voices are heard, rather than His?)

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then you have perforce decided certain things, which exclude other things ... and all the question asks is, are your suppostitions for inclusion or rejection founded on your own opinion or the testimony to hand?


Far from simple ... the question is why do we believe in something different? And from the perspective of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, the difference lies in the degree to which the believer is inclined to interpret Scripture according to his or her own presuppositions.

And we would be One Church, One Body in Christ ... speed the day!
(Or is it more important that our voices are heard, rather than His?)

Sure, I'll agree to one church...er...my church! What you want the one church to be your church...I protest! oops sorry already been done

So it appears you are implying we should rely on scripture...but I'd say if there exists any entity that has created more volumes of discussion and heated argument on what that scripture means and how to interpret it in their way...what entity would that be?

Everyone interprets scripture with their own suppositions...or they make the suppositions of some hierarchy their own.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Sure, I'll agree to one church...er...my church! What you want the one church to be your church...I protest! oops sorry already been done

That's the problem ... not until we look at 'the Church' and not 'my church' will unity be attained ... I tend to agree with you though, man being the creature that he is, that's unlikely, without some order of intervention...

Originally Posted by wil

So it appears you are implying we should rely on scripture...but I'd say if there exists any entity that has created more volumes of discussion and heated argument on what that scripture means and how to interpret it in their way...what entity would that be?

Not at all. Scripture is the product of Tradition, so we should also listen to Tradition.

Then there is the Liturgy ... the Liturgy is older than Scripture ... so we should study the Liturgy as well as tradition as well as Scripture, for that is what authentic Christianity is, and that will give us a sound foundation on which to stand ... but there's the problem, the Catholic/Orthodox Church already stands as the only Church that combines Liturgy and Tradition and Scripture ...

Originally Posted by wil

Everyone interprets scripture with their own suppositions...or they make the suppositions of some hierarchy their own.

Precisely, because tradition and the liturgy were thrown away ... and men either just ignored it, or concocted their own.

Except the Catholic and Orthodox ... which alone can demonstrate an unbroken line of succession of preaching, teaching, liturgy, tradition.

The later denominations are schismatic, deviating from the Apostolic Teaching, according to individual interpretation ... and now we arrive at the 'Jesus of my own invention' and the assumed axiom — over-arching in the West — that there is no such thing as truth, just personal narrative.

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Could god become a man? Isn't god man anyway?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Except the Catholic and Orthodox ... which alone can demonstrate an unbroken line of succession of preaching, teaching, liturgy, tradition.

The later denominations are schismatic, deviating from the Apostolic Teaching, according to individual interpretation ... and now we arrive at the 'Jesus of my own invention' and the assumed axiom — over-arching in the West — that there is no such thing as truth, just personal narrative.

Appears Benedict is entrenched, I miss John Paul. (ps I guess across the pond they aren't aware that in the US Benedict is a slang for traitor.)

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wil

Appears Benedict is entrenched, I miss John Paul. (ps I guess across the pond they aren't aware that in the US Benedict is a slang for traitor.)

Oh name slang! A bit like calling someone a "James Blunt"?

[wil]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Oh name slang! A bit like calling someone a "James Blunt"?

Could be, but that one hasn't crossed the pond either...Our Benedict Arnold tried to give away the military academy West Point to the British during the revolution.

[17th Angel]

I think over your side of the pond, it wouldn't go down well as your side seems to be really offended by the word it represents lol....... Your one however... I feel sorry for those that get named benedict... :|

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Oh name slang! A bit like calling someone a "James Blunt"?

Is that rhying name slang? If not, what does it mean?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Is that rhying name slang? If not, what does it mean?

Rhyming lol...... I think I use this prhase more than any.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Precisely, because tradition and the liturgy were thrown away ... and men either just ignored it, or concocted their own.

Except the Catholic and Orthodox ... which alone can demonstrate an unbroken line of succession of preaching, teaching, liturgy, tradition.

The later denominations are schismatic, deviating from the Apostolic Teaching, according to individual interpretation ... and now we arrive at the 'Jesus of my own invention' and the assumed axiom — over-arching in the West — that there is no such thing as truth, just personal narrative.

I'm a man of the Book. Regardless of how it came about, both Catholics and Protestants (well, most anyway) will agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If we can establish this, then we have some common ground in which to discuss the issue of Tradition. I read in my bible that Jesus warned of certain traditions in Matthew 15, as it nullifies the commandments of God. I could name several examples that seem to prove my point in regards to the Catholic tradition. For one, Jesus said in Matthew 6:7-8, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Now what are we Protestants suppose to think when Catholics go through the rosary, repeating the same prayers rotely over and over? Isn't that being a bit repetitious? Why don't you understand that the "Our Father" prayer, which immediately follows this warning from Christ, is a model prayer and wasn't intended to be repeated verbatim over and over, but that the content of the prayer should reflect our attitude in approaching God. Can you honestly say that after saying the "Our Father" ten times it didn't get old and saying it was mere ritual, rather than a heartfelt prayer to God? Be honest now.

Of course, repetitious prayer can apply to Protestants also, for who hasn't said grace in the exact same manner of the last meal. When I catch myself doing that I try to change the words so it isn't just a mundane mantra to be said because I'm hungry and want to get the prayer over with and eat. You now what I mean? God is looking for prayer from the heart. He is looking for our own "Our Father" prayer.

I'm not out to toss away tradition, but when tradition contradicts what I find in Scripture, I tend to be cautious and stand by the Book. I don't think this is trying to invent a "Jesus of our own invention". It's more like finding Jesus in the most basic form of information God has given us. Discovering who Jesus really is in the confines of Scripture. Letting God speak to the heart directly from His Word (Hebrews 4:12). Does not the Holy Spirit who dwells in us teach us from the Word? "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." - John 14:26