I have a question concerning Jesus.....

bruce · 07-13-2004, 09:42 PM

Now I'm a Jehovah Witness and I know "we" witnesses understand that people don't understand us because of the way we look at the bible.At one time I was a Baptist now forget about what church you belong and what you believe just look at this one verse and tell me what Jesus is saying in this verse.KJ 1611 edtion.John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her,touch me not for I am not yet accended to my Father ; but go to my brethen, and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God, and your God."Now by looking at what that verse says it tells me that Jesus's father is our father and that Jesus's God is our God.I can't see it any other way.It doesn't say Jesus is God or Jesus is our father it says Jesus's father is our father and Jesus's God is our God.This is from the King James 1611 edition and not The New World Translation of the Holy Scripitues.That verse is as simple as it gets and please I do not mean to offend or preach.

Mus Zibii · 07-14-2004, 04:44 AM

And I don't want to offend or whine, you've been incredibly polite here, but you keep repeating this same issue over and over. Its a good topic, don't get me wrong. But it was addressed in the first thread you started on the trinity.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ead.php?t=1176

If it helps, I'll concede that the divinity of the Jesus character is convoluted at best. Brian did a good piece of Jesus and hell, and Jesus' resemblance to the OT prophets. And apart from the theory on baptism, I agree with it completely.

But then you have the failures of Judaism under Jesus. The impossibility of reconciling what is written of him--the many many conflicting points--with Judaism. Not to mention Christianity, including Jehovah's Witnesses. And--whew--not to mention the historical failures of Jesus himself.

I came to Christianity through the criticism of Jesus. Namely, in the Talmud. The human embodiment of God in the presence of the pious and secular is a far better meditation on existence than anything provided by any numbers of the sects out there.

littlemissattitude · 07-14-2004, 07:59 AM

And neither do I intend to offend...however, I have to say that taking the meaning from any verse, from any scripture, be it from Christianity or any other religion, is not "simple" in any sense of the word. First, you have to take into consideration that no translation can possibly be completely true to the original. Second, you must recognize that not everyone is a Biblical literalist, taking every word of any translation, or even the original, as actual and literal truth. Thirdly, no one knows the exact circumstances in which any verse was written. We don't know whether the writer even meant for his words to be taken literally or figuratively. So, for you the meaning of this verse may be clear and simple. For many of us, however, it is not. So, if I were to assign any meaning to this verse, it would only be my understanding of it, not what it "really" means. And my understanding is, ultimately, is meaningful only to me, in the context of my personal belief system.

Mus Zibii · 07-14-2004, 09:56 AM

And I think that officially covers all angles. LOL

ZioNNoiz never did respond in that other thread.

Mus Zibii · 07-14-2004, 10:07 AM

I've been re-reading Elaine Pagels lately and it struck me how many different identifications of Jesus there are. He's the messiah (last king of Israel), he's the son of man (character from Daniel's vision), a prophet (ala Isaiah), son of God (literally, not OT style), God himself (said 'I am' alot, so he's either god or Popeye), angel of god (talked to that broad by the well), reincarnation of some great Jew (Elijah, Melchizedek?)... did I leave anybody out? Oh! Micheal the Archangel. No, I said angel of the lord.

Its funny how Buddha tried to convince everyone he was a perfectly ordinary human and Jesus is thought of as god. Talk about contrast.

Vajradhara · 07-14-2004, 06:31 PM

Namatse Mus Zibii,

thank you for the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Its funny how Buddha tried to convince everyone he was a perfectly ordinary human and Jesus is thought of as god. Talk about contrast.

actually... what is rather interesting in this regard is that when he was asked if he was a God, he said no.. when asked if he was a normal human, he said no. when asked what he was, he replied "Awake"

Abogado del Diablo · 07-14-2004, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namatse Mus Zibii,

thank you for the post.

actually... what is rather interesting in this regard is that when he was asked if he was a God, he said no.. when asked if he was a normal human, he said no. when asked what he was, he replied "Awake"

And in Genesis we have the name YHWH or YHVH rendered as "Yaweh" or "Jehovah" that actually means "I Am that I Am" - being. (Ex. 3:14) Jesus uses the phrase to identify himself as well (John 8:58).

I, Brian · 07-14-2004, 11:42 PM

Someone will no doubt add Popeye to that list.

Marsh · 07-15-2004, 02:03 AM

I agree with you, Bruce. Jesus did indeed tell us (albeit not in so many words) that he was not God the Father. For example, he said that God the Father is his witness, verifying that all Jesus said was true. The witness and the defendant cannot be the same person, can they? Jesus also explicitly said that he was the son of God; the father and the son cannot be the same person, can they? And why did Jesus look into heaven while giving thanks to God the Father, just before he performed the miracle of feeding the 5000, or of raising the dead back to life; if he was God the Father, why didn't he just look in a mirror? Indeed, no matter how you cut it there is a distinction between God the Father and his son Jesus Christ.

Just one question though, Bruce, because I haven't thought things out that far: If human sons grow up to be human fathers, who would the son of God grow up to be?

bananabrain · 07-15-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

I came to Christianity through the criticism of Jesus. Namely, in the Talmud. The human embodiment of God in the presence of the pious and secular is a far better meditation on existence than anything provided by any numbers of the sects out there.

i'd be interested in hearing more about this, if you're up for it.

Quote:

And in Genesis we have the name [...] that actually means "I Am that I Am" - being. (Ex. 3:14) Jesus uses the phrase to identify himself as well (John 8:58).

which is rather problematic from a jewish point of view, as indeed is reproducing phonetic treatments of these Names on a website, if you don't mind me saying.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Abogado del Diablo · 07-15-2004, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'd be interested in hearing more about this, if you're up for it.

which is rather problematic from a jewish point of view, as indeed is reproducing phonetic treatments of these Names on a website, if you don't mind me saying.

b'shalom

bananabrain

The Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't even identify themselves here it that were the rule.

Abogado del Diablo · 07-15-2004, 04:06 PM

Quote:
And in Genesis we have the name [...] that actually means "I Am that I Am" - being. (Ex. 3:14) Jesus uses the phrase to identify himself as well (John 8:58).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

which is rather problematic from a jewish point of view, as indeed is reproducing phonetic treatments of these Names on a website

Why is that? What is the reasoning?

bananabrain · 07-15-2004, 04:47 PM

er, isn't that obvious? "thou shalt have no other G!D but Me?" it's pretty basic that jesus being anything other than a human being, albeit an exceptional one, ought to be a problem for monotheists. the muslims agree.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Abogado del Diablo · 07-15-2004, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

er, isn't that obvious? "thou shalt have no other G!D but Me?" it's pretty basic that jesus being anything other than a human being, albeit an exceptional one, ought to be a problem for monotheists. the muslims agree.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was really interested in the reasoning behind the prohibition against "phoenetical treatments of these names."

bananabrain · 07-15-2004, 06:08 PM

you are aware, presumably, that jews are not permitted to sound out these Names phonetically, but to refer to them by paraphrases and paraphrases of paraphrases, as per "not taking the Divine Name in vain", as the translation has it. we believe that hebrew is lashon ha-qodesh, the Holy tongue, whose words and letters have power in their own right. they are a direct link to the energy of the higher worlds and the Divine Names are even more so. basically, it's like keeping a photo of a loved one - you're going to treat such a thing with respect - and how much more so should we treat the Names of G!D. by avoiding pronouncing them or writing them down directly, we avoid their misuse by those who are not aware of the importance of this or do not respect this tradition. so, hypothetically, someone might be reading this thread out loud, which from my perspective would be the mystical equivalent of touching an industrial power cable, as it were, or, even worse, going to a page where the hebrew is displayed, printing it off and leaving it in an unsuitable place.

b'shalom

bananabrain