Jesus-Neither Literal Son of God nor God

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Well now, I am curious. What scriptures exactly do you follow?

Good question. I have read and practiced them all to some extent and revere all the Truths the ancient sages discoverd. I have been initiated into animism, shamanism, yoga, Confuscianism, and Buddhism - and of course reared as a Christian, both in a Catholic convent as well as a Protestant institution. I was ordained a zen monk in Japan. So what scripture do I follow? I have been forced to write my own for the past twenty years. I call it Psyche-Genetics - a fusion of phsyics and metaphsyics, based on the metaphsyical potentials in the atomic equation. It is underscored by all the social and spiritual disciplines that all our ancestors believed and parcticed from the Stone Age onwards. It encompasses the family ethic of meticulous sharing; the extended family values of a chore-based work ethic, agricultural smarts, the courage to face a lion; the national ethics of conscientious crafstmanship and a profound respect for Scriptural wisdoms; and international reverence for scientific investigation. This is all topped by a global vision of planet stewardship followed by future Ages of mastership and sagehood that we will one day evolve into. I guess that's about it in a nutshell.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Good question. I have read and practiced them all to some extent and revere all the Truths the ancient sages discoverd. I have been initiated into animism, shamanism, yoga, Confuscianism, and Buddhism - and of course reared as a Christian, both in a Catholic convent as well as a Protestant institution. I was ordained a zen monk in Japan. So what scripture do I follow? I have been forced to write my own for the past twenty years. I call it Psyche-Genetics - a fusion of phsyics and metaphsyics, based on the metaphsyical potentials in the atomic equation. It is underscored by all the social and spiritual disciplines that all our ancestors believed and parcticed from the Stone Age onwards. It encompasses the family ethic of meticulous sharing; the extended family values of a chore-based work ethic, agricultural smarts, the courage to face a lion; the national ethics of conscientious crafstmanship and a profound respect for Scriptural wisdoms; and international reverence for scientific investigation. This is all topped by a global vision of planet stewardship followed by future Ages of mastership and sagehood that we will one day evolve into. I guess that's about it in a nutshell.

I am currently reading a book (and saw the movie) called "What the Bleep Do We Know?", which has been mentioned in a previous post. Have you read this or seen the movie? I have to admit that some of the prospects of the movie/book are rather hard to swallow. For instance, what we see now is not reality, but a holodeck of our mind (via Star Trek). The basis of this is because particles and waves cannot be directly observed , but are influenced by our observations. Hence, everything we sense is not real until we act upon it. I couldn't quite grasp the concept. The book attempts to mix quantuum physics with metaphysics, but I just can't see it. Maybe these things are true on a subatomic level, but can we really create our own reality?

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I am currently reading a book (and saw the movie) called "What the Bleep Do We Know?", which has been mentioned in a previous post. Have you read this or seen the movie? I have to admit that some of the prospects of the movie/book are rather hard to swallow. For instance, what we see now is not reality, but a holodeck of our mind (via Star Trek). The basis of this is because particles and waves cannot be directly observed , but are influenced by our observations. Hence, everything we sense is not real until we act upon it. I couldn't quite grasp the concept. The book attempts to mix quantuum physics with metaphysics, but I just can't see it. Maybe these things are true on a subatomic level, but can we really create our own reality?

I'm afraid I'm too organic to accept such a diluted form of reality. Anything and everything is possible of course. Shankar, a 14th Century Indian mystic and intellectual stated that all physical manifestation is "maya' or illusional, that the universe just appears to be real, which is where, I guess, the book and movie got its basic theme. Quantum mechanics supports the idea that sub-atomic behavior can be both particle and wave at the same time. Perhaps it all boils down to personal choice. I cannot imagine enjoying a holographic orgasm however. I prefer what appears to me to be the real thing. I believe that the flavors experienced by our five senses, and the extremes of emotion we go through, both positive and negative, are the whole point of Creation - and the evolution of humans to our high state of consciousness is the vehicle by which the Supreme Creator can observe, taste, experience and evaluate it all. We are He and He is We. Narcissis staring into the mirror of our own reflection. Buit ask me again in our final stage of eveolution, when our species completes its evolutonary cycle and we reach our sagehood and transcend mundane life to re-unite with our original Self. By then I should know for sure if it was all an illusion or not.. Meantime enjoy the meal while it is on the table.

[taijasi]

So long as this thread is still on Comparative, let's not forget that the Egyptians had their own tradition of God-men - the Pharaohs. I'm sure, if anyone really cared ... I could go digging around and find some holy papyrii that tell all about how X pharaoh, or all of them, were the Sons of God. Oh, but that's not the Bible. Yes it was ... for them. And that goes back thousands of years before Christ. Holy Books appear before, during, and since those times, but what I find them indicating fairly well across the board, has already been intimated:

We're all children of God, and thus the Divine Spark is present within all of us. Every single human is loved by God, and has the potential to come into a greater spiritual relationship with the Divine ... and the love which we're learning to show our family, friends, associates, and even our enemies (as Christ instructed us), seems to me the same love that we are also learning to show God. We have this potential to Love, as God Loves, not despite our true nature, but because of it!

We can speak of this in terms of Inner Human Goodness, without denying that each of us struggles to embody the spiritual Ideal. So also, did Jesus of Nazareth struggle ... as evidenced in his 40 days in the wilderness, when tempted, as well as in the Garden of Gethsemane. Obviously such temptations, and struggles with Divine Will, would have been pointless, irrelevant, and a complete waste of time ... worthless for us to consider, if there had been nothing there to tempt, within Jesus, to begin with. If already perfect, why bother? Think about that. Either the point is that Jesus was still undergoing his own spiritual development, and was able to demonstrate that he was finally ready for a higher stage of growth ... or else it was all an act, a complete put-on job.

I choose, to believe the former. Now I will not argue this on the Christian board, nor with individuals. No point, and certainly nothing to be gained for anyone. For me, it's just the only way that any of the Gospel story makes sense - and in fact, my entire understanding of Purpose, or our raison d'etre, hinges upon it! And I trust that I am free to have my own understanding and interpretations of each Biblical passage, just as the next guy/gal. When that freedom, too, is removed from me ... indeed, it might finally be time to leave this lovely country I still reside in. I find that the "I'm right, because I'm Divinely-guided, and if you disagree me you're with the ... ahem" mentality ... is disgusting.

andrew

[Thomas]

Hi Bandit -

You might be referring to the various Docetist heresies, which stated that Jesus Christ was an angelic nature who took a human form, was not human as such, but just 'appeared' to be human to observers.

The development of Christology is really an ongoing process, beliefs included:

God but not man;
Man but not God;
An angel, neither God nor man;
Man assumed by God...

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Well, here's the problem. We can look at the New Testament in several ways:

1) We either take the New testament as scripture as a whole and accept the all the teachings as truth.
2) We can pick out what we want to believe about the New Testament to suit our beliefs.
3) reject the New Testament out right, and therefore believe none of it.

Whatever way you want to look at it will determine how your belief system is formed, at least when it comes to Jesus Christ. Most other religions tend to go with the second choice.

The intent of quoting scripture was to demonstrate what the text plainly says, it's up to you whether you wish to believe it or not.

I know of no one that doesn't pick and choose. When discrepancies are presented they are dismissed or loosely justified...when something doesn't meet someones taste it is abandoned, or they go search for another scripture that justifies their response.

Love your neighbor...if you don't have a sword, sell your stuff and buy one... ye are Gods, everything I have done you can do and more...

[Thomas]

Hi Wil -

If it is so cut and dry why wasn't it accepted by so many early churches?

Good question!

The staggering thing we've all grown complacent about is how revolutionary the Gospel was (and still is, bearing in mind no-one's succeeded in living it yet at the cultural level).

John's Gospel says they didn't fully understand, right up to the Resurrection, they didn't quite believe ...

The Jews were in uproar - "Blasphemy!" The Greeks were scandalised - "You're asking us to accept that bloody wreck of a man as the Incarnation of the One? Have you ever read Plato? You're logic's as full of holes as he is!" The Romans thought it was all New Age Nonsense "we can tolerate the Jews - just - on the grounds of ancestral observance, but these Christians are a crowd of Johnny-newcomers!"

Monotheism - are you sure? God incarnate of a Virgin - are you completely out of your mind? A God, stripped, flogged, ridiculed, beaten, spat on, jeered at, nailed to a cross in the full view of all - can't be much of a god then, can he? ... Remission of Sin? Resurrection of the Flesh? What have you been eating?

The Creed (the esoteric doctrine of Christianity) was such an explosive document the catechumen was sworn to secrecy: "The Discipline of the Arcana", and it remained that way until the Arian dispute blew it wide open, then everybody was talking about it...

I think the question is not what they accepted or failed to accept, but what they brought with them as part of their makeup, as do so many to these forums ... whatever your logic is, it must conform to mine, before I will accept it ...

The Ebbionites, for example, were a strict Jewish Sect within Christianity, as were the Jerusalem Christians. Paul had a stand-up row with Peter when the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem refused, on grounds of Pharisaic Law, to eat with the Gentile Christians of Antioch. Paul said either the message was for all, or it was not, but it could not be provisional ... or (dare I say it) exclusive ...

From my understanding it was Jesus's own family that rejected much of what Paul was preaching as being not in accordance to Jesus's thought.
I'm not sure about 'much'. Certainly James played it low-key, but then the Jerusalem Christians were scattered by the sacking of the city (70AD).

Paul had a disciple, Luke, and tradition holds that Luke spent some time with Mary, so it is unlikely that Luke would have been linked to both Paul and Mary if the fallout had been serious - or at least Paul would have got Luke to play down the Marian angle.

And why the fistfight between the bishops regarding diefying him?

Well, if you think about it, the dispute meant far more to people than a bunch of cartoons. To the 'man in the street' it wasn't an obscure philosophical point, it's what they actually believed. It was real, and the chances of an afterlike depended on it. We have grown so reasonable, so relative, nothing matters to us the way it did to antiquity.

And bishops, by the way, was nothing. There were running streetfights between rival mobs, one lot chanting "homo! homo! ousios!" (the Son is of one substance as the Father) and the other lot "Een pote hote ouk Een" ("there was a time when he was not").

Try it - stirring stuff! Actually I don't mean that, but it is our heritage, that blood runs in our veins. We weren't a lukewarm people then, we were people with passion that would make modern man look like a wallflower.

But again, we have to look carefully. The Arian controversy was started by a presbyter, not a bishop, and continued for purposes of political gain, rather than theological exactitude. Arius himself lamented that, towards the end of his life, the dispute had become nothing about what he taught ... but the exercise of authority.

Mostly the arguments of Christology were not about whether he was the Son of God but how.

The reality of the answer is ... it does not matter ... it is a mystery ... but the problem is the 'outside world' were taking possession of his name for their own ends and claiming to explain Christ as this, that and everything in between (again, much like these forums).

The bishops were then faced with a problem - if they are going to fulfill their Christ-ordained mission of spreading the Word of God, then they need to be able to defend it, which will involve refuting error, and explaining why.

So was Christ man, God, man become God, God become man ... Did Christ have one nature, or two? One soul or two? one will or two? Did the one subsume the other, or not? How did the two relate? How could Christ know the future in one moment, and not know it in the next? How can He be God, and yet unknowing? How can He be the Son of the Father, and yet not created? How can there be a Trinity, and yet not three Gods?

How can Scripture say this ... and that ... and still be true?

Sadly Christ did not leave a manual when He ascended, He is the manual, a Mystery in plain sight, and allowed us the joy of discovering Him.

So the bishops met, and sometimes they agreed, and sometimes they didn't, and sometimes they took a position on political grounds, and sometimes theological. Sometimes they just didn't understand, other times they just obstinately refused to, and some spoke with eloquence that brought the others to their feet, and sometimes they threw punches, and pulled beards ... the problem with bishops is they're human, like the rest of us ... they're just trying to fathom the Mystery, with the added burden of responsibility for those whom they lead.

Sometimes they did a good job, and sometimes they didn't.

And let's face it, if they were always good, and right, and perfect, and never put a foot wrong in 2,000 years (as is usually expected of them) then that would be a miracle in anybody's book, and an undeniable proof of God!

And you are right these verses were written before 100 AD, yet still with 30 year old hand me down verbally memory...hence the discrepencies between the books.

The Buddhist texts were written down 400 years later; the Vedas are so old no-one's really sure who wrote them, let alone when; not sure when the Koran was written, but that renders Christian Scripture of the NT more 'recent' with regard to its founding than most others, I think.

Thomas

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Bandit -

You might be referring to the various Docetist heresies, which stated that Jesus Christ was an angelic nature who took a human form, was not human as such, but just 'appeared' to be human to observers.

The development of Christology is really an ongoing process, beliefs included:

God but not man;
Man but not God;
An angel, neither God nor man;
Man assumed by God...

Thomas

somthing like that. (just appeared to be human) i have heard it called divine flesh, heavenly flesh & celestial flesh.
they get it from an idea that flesh (bread) came down from heaven & great is the mystery of godliness.
it is minimizing his humanity as if he was not human but made out of some kind of synthetic.
kind of creepy, to me.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

I know of no one that doesn't pick and choose. When discrepancies are presented they are dismissed or loosely justified...when something doesn't meet someones taste it is abandoned, or they go search for another scripture that justifies their response.

Love your neighbor...if you don't have a sword, sell your stuff and buy one... ye are Gods, everything I have done you can do and more...

hey wil,
just a gentle & respectful suggestion. if you are going to study the scriptures then look for analogy instead of argument. this fits with this because this fits with that. if something is not fitting, then put it to the side for later days & allow for years in your life to make it come together.
you seem to be seeing it from an argument perspective instead of building blocks. look for some purpose in the scriptures & let go of the past & let go of the history that came after the Apostles... & you will be able to move on & get a deeper understanding in the Word. no one says we all have to agree on everything & no one has all the answers.

we all have a habit of trying to fit the scriptures into different doctrines & our own philosophy & ideas that have been passed down - from out there & the past. some things are black & white, but in the gray areas, look for wisdom & balance instead of contradiction.

an open mind & honest heart & realize some things may be meant to remain a mystery for us as indiviuals until a later date. elevated conclusions should close in like effects

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Bandit

hey wil,
we all have a habit of trying to fit the scriptures into different doctrines & our own philosophy & ideas that have been passed down - from out there & the past. some things are black & white, but in the gray areas, look for wisdom & balance instead of contradiction.

an open mind & honest heart & realize some things may be meant to remain a mystery for us as indiviuals until a later date. elevated conclusions should close in like effects

I do not think Wil was being close-minded when he posted his comments. Scripture will always be burdened with the problem of interpretation, simply because it is an artificial invention. Even the spoken word os difficult, for it too is an artificial invention. And the noisy mind, scrambled by words and script has consequently lost the abilty to intuit the Truth directly, so we end up in interminable opinionated discussions such as this. The problems the Church had with defining the divinity of Christ, were the same faced by earlier other cultures with the likes of Apollo etc The claims of Mangods and Sons of God are little more than extentions of original Bronze Age claims of totemic divinity made by every clan. As a modern instance the word "zulu" means God. The amaZulu are people of God. In essence the debate over the divinity of Jesus is essentially pseudo-intellectualism ad infinitum. There real pressing issue has always been the Christ message, which is always tagged on as some kind of after-thought. The idea of turning the other cheek was a brilliant long-term insight, made by a simple carpenter's son. who suddenly saw the childishness of war and assumed might, and got himself crucified for saying it. I Love and revere him all the more for being a man and not a God, and dying for what he thought was right, and that is all that matters. The other argument leaves me cold - no angry! For it is detracting from all the Christian work that really needs to be done for our neighbors!
Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men.

[MagnetMan]

Corrections. The word 'zulu" means heaven and not God. But in essence the ancient Zulus claimed to be people of God. I said angry, but I really meant ashamed... for not only is the debate of Jesus' divinity alienating us from other cultures but it is detracting us as a super-power from doing all the christian work that needs to be done.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I do not think Wil was being close-minded when he posted his comments. Scripture will always be burdened with the problem of interpretation, simply because it is an artificial invention. Even the spoken word os difficult, for it too is an artificial invention. And the noisy mind, scrambled by words and script has consequently lost the abilty to intuit the Truth directly, so we end up in interminable opinionated discussions such as this.

i do not think Wil is closed minded. that is not what i was trying to say. i also do not think the scripture or interpretation of scripture is an artificial invention. there is instruction in the Word on how to study it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i do not think Wil is closed minded. that is not what i was trying to say. i also do not think the scripture or interpretation of scripture is an artificial invention. there is instruction in the Word on how to study it.

Man is a "machine" (after a fashion), very complex and intricate, and old, hence in need of a manual that was originally created for the original model. Scripture is that manual. In short, it is an "how to" manual for causing man to perform at peak efficiency. And there is nothing in the original manuals that will cause man to fail prematurely. However, recent updates are more or less designed to burn the "machine" out much quicker than originally designed.

Think about it...these authors of scripture did not come off the cuff with this information on what makes man run at his best. They acquired this information from the school of hard knocks. And they took the time to pass that knowledge on to us (no small feat by any means)...

v/r

Q

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So was Christ man, God, man become God, God become man ... Did Christ have one nature, or two? One soul or two? one will or two? Did the one subsume the other, or not? How did the two relate? How could Christ know the future in one moment, and not know it in the next? How can He be God, and yet unknowing? How can He be the Son of the Father, and yet not created? How can there be a Trinity, and yet not three Gods?

How can Scripture say this ... and that ... and still be true?

Thomas

Even if we don't grasp the concept or even accept that Jesus was the Son of God, or at least not uniquely the Son of God, The fact is that the relationship between Jesus and the Father far exceeded anything that the first century Jews were used to. He taught beyond the boundaries of the written law and restored the spiritual significance of the law, exemplified in the two greatest commandments. Beyond that, He showed compassion through His miracles and healings. And ultimately demonstrated love supreme by laying down His life for his friends, which extends to us, should we accept it.

Even if we ignore the claim of Jesus being the only begotten Son, His Resurrection validated His relationship with the Father and paved a way which we may follow, thereby granting us the right to be sons and daughters of God ourselves.

In the final analysis, I don't think it is vitally important to try and figure out the nature of Christ, but rather what He did for us is important as evident in John 14:11:

"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Even if we don't grasp the concept or even accept that Jesus was the Son of God, or at least not uniquely the Son of God, The fact is that the relationship between Jesus and the Father far exceeded anything that the first century Jews were used to. He taught beyond the boundaries of the written law and restored the spiritual significance of the law, exemplified in the two greatest commandments. Beyond that, He showed compassion through His miracles and healings. And ultimately demonstrated love supreme by laying down His life for his friends, which extends to us, should we accept it.

Even if we ignore the claim of Jesus being the only begotten Son, His Resurrection validated His relationship with the Father and paved a way which we may follow, thereby granting us the right to be sons and daughters of God ourselves.

In the final analysis, I don't think it is vitally important to try and figure out the nature of Christ, but rather what He did for us is important as evident in John 14:11:

"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

The biggest difference between Jesus and all other men of vision and/or enlightenment is this, all agree they "were". Christians state Jesus is...

I know it is a small thing, but it is also significant in the perception of the Son of God, by those that profess to follow His ways, or more precisely, Him.

v/r

Q