Christianity the only true religion?

[Thomas]

Hi JM –

I am slightly confused by the logic, as I read it. It seems to me on the one hand you are saying Jesus Christ is not the Son of God incarnate, and then on the other that God is incarnate in all of us.

Where's the distinction?

Why was Christ's mission necessary?

What was it?

Thomas

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi JM –

I am slightly confused by the logic, as I read it. It seems to me on the one hand you are saying Jesus Christ is not the Son of God incarnate, and then on the other that God is incarnate in all of us.

Where's the distinction?

Why was Christ's mission necessary?

What was it?

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Sorry, I didn't mean it to be confusing. I was just making a point by reference to NT writings that God can be in us as much as God was in Jesus. Never said Jesus was not son of God as it seems you imply above. Only that we who receive Christ that Jesus manifested are no less a son of God. Though we may as yet not be fully transformed by that anointing, nevertheless God is also within us and by NT writings considers us also sons. From what I understand of God's Love, he is no respector of persons and values all alike. Whether you consider yourself a son or adopted son makes no difference to God.

Jesus's mission to me is seen here as to manifest the divinity of God (Christ) to the people and show the way to back to God by that manisfestation of divinity within each of us through the uplifting power unconditional Love of God and neighbor.

Why it was necessary seems to me not to require an answer as it is obvious that man in general needed what Jesus had to offer.

Love in Christ,
JM

[Dor]

Originally Posted by JosephM

If that were true that truly would be amazing.

Love in Christ,
JM

Thanks God that statement you doubt is one that was 100% truthful.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Hi Streetbob,

I believe God was always here and doesn't need to come from somewhere to get to earth.

I don't believe you can whip, and spit on God. God is a spirit.

But if it were true, yes it would truly be amazing!

Love in Christ,
JM

So you actually deny Christ's divinity 100%

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

In a sense "God" was "whipped" and "spit on," but not literally. A man born with the likeness of God, the Son of Man was whipped and spit on. It was a man who demonstrated what God was like so that people could understand Him -- a man who was a projection of God. They whipped and spit on a man whose life demonstrated what God was like.

Sorry SM but he was fully man and fully God.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi Pattimax,

Are you referring to the location? If you are, then the answer is no, the location does not make it true. Equally one could ask: “So that makes it false?”

s.

Hey Snoopy,

Actually I was referring to the original question.

As for the link you posted (The one labeled "Anger", hmmm...) can take to very diverse and interesting places, but at the end you will be nowhere or worse.

Sincerely, Pattimax

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Dor

Sorry SM but he was fully man and fully God.

I think it really depends on what we mean by "fully man" and "fully God."

A person takes on the identity of another if he/she has all the essential qualities of the person he/she imitates or emulates. Jesus had all the essential qualities of a human being but at the same time had all essential qualities of God. That meant that Jesus took on the identity of God. If Jesus had all the essential qualities of a human being and God then in theory he is "fully man" and "fully God," right?

In the sense that Jesus and God are two separate beings, I would say Jesus is not God (literally). However, I would also say that because Jesus had all the essential character and personality traits of God then he is God in the sense that God and Jesus had the same identity (Jesus was a paradigm for God).

My impression is that the idea that "Jesus is God" is more of a way of saying that Jesus and God were essentially identical in character, though not the same in composition and not materially the same. To me, this has appeared to be an idea that is so subtle that many of us fail to notice it in our own way of thinking, let alone express it. Sure, I might be criticised for coming up with theories about how we conceptualise Jesus and God, but do we not, at some point, have to explain, to ourselves, our own way of thinking?

As Christians we are often taught (though not all of us) to follow a strict approach to conceptualising Jesus and God -- to stick to the theories of preachers, pastors, bishops, ministers, etc. That's because ministers are anxious to protect the Christian community. While I can understand that they may spend so much more of their time reading scripture, they may not have seen enough of the world outside the church building to be able to reason proficiently about conceptualisations of Jesus and God. The layperson is influenced to believe that just because he/she isn't a minister that he/she can't think for himself/herself.

I've read theories on what one may mean by "fully man" and "fully God," but what I disagree with is the idea that "fully man" and "fully God" mean that Jesus and God are of the same substance. Quite clearly, a human being and God can't be "of the same substance." It's the idea that Jesus and God must have the same composition and material substance.

Jesus and God not having "the same substance" doesn't mean Jesus isn't "fully man" and "fully God." The descriptions "fully man" and "fully God" don't necessarily refer to "substance." The theory I have in mind at the moment is that "fully man" and "fully God" are not a reference to "substance," "material composition" but identity.

Everybody has a personality. Your personality is your identity. God has an identity too, because God has a personality.

That's why the Son leads to the Father; it's because they both have the same identity. Anyone who sees the Son has seen the Father. They're identical. They have all the same essential qualities, all other qualities being irrelevant. The idea is not to worship the Son as God, but to use the Son to find the Father, since the Son has the identity of God, the Father. The Son is like the Father's fingerprints. Jesus was God's fingerprint. God left His fingerprints all over the world through Christ. Our aim is to follow this trail of fingerprints that lead us back to God. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with worshipping the Son, because after all, he has the same identity as God.

My theory, of course, but hopefully a useful insight . . .

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Why it was necessary seems to me not to require an answer as it is obvious that man in general needed what Jesus had to offer.


JM

Hello JM,
I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

For forgiveness (atonement), a blood sacrifice was required.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Hello JM,
I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

For forgiveness (atonement), a blood sacrifice was required.

Yes, Had a great thanksgiving with the family and friends, thank you.

I hear what you are saying pattimax.

Love in Christ,
JM

[Thomas]

Hi JM -

It's probably me, but I still read your posts to imply that simply because you exist, Christ exists in you – as if Christ was a quality of your nature – which Scripturally is not the case.

Christ, as the light of men, does not mean that every man is enlightened.
(If I take your posts at face value, we're all enlightened, we're all perfect, and the world is as it should be, which I don't think you mean.)

Equally, you are not that light – the light is within you – recognition of that fact is where the work of the Christian begins, not where it ends.

The Jews generally believed that man was animated by the breath of God, and on the death of man that breathe returned, and man went to the grave.

Christ taught that it is possible to unite with the animating Spirit – but this 'gift' is a grace and not a given – unless we know we are faultless and without sin.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

...I still read your posts to imply that simply because you exist, Christ exists in you – as if Christ was a quality of your nature – which Scripturally is not the case.... Equally, you are not that light – the light is within you – recognition of that fact is where the work of the Christian begins, not where it ends....Christ taught that it is possible to unite with the animating Spirit – but this 'gift' is a grace and not a given – unless we know we are faultless and without sin.

Again Thomas you confuse me today. First you say you interpret JM to say that he is wrong in thinking Christ exists in him, then you go on to say the light is within you (we are not that light) and then on further to say it is not given...unless we are faultless and without sin.

So the first two statements seem completely contradictory. Is Christ, the light within us or not, in your opinion.

I say 'he' (Christ, light, G-d, Enlightenment...) is within us all, waiting.

But if as you say we have to be faultless and without sin in order to receive this gift, that is NOT a given...and at the same time doctrine says none of us are. And the confessional says go and sin no more...oh and see you next week.

[Quahom1]

Only way Christ can be within any man, is if that man invites Him in. That too is biblical. There can be no assumption that Christs resides within a man without the man's consent.

And by accepting Christ within implies certain conditions. One of which is the shedding of the old life and taking on the new.

Every king has rules, else it is anarchy.

I see where Dor is going with this, and the Bible backs him up. God's love is not unconditional for those who refuse to accept His authority. Then He becomes Judge over His creation.

People scoff, and refuse to accept the laws of God, while alive. But apparently there will come a time when their refusal to accept the laws given them of God will be irrelevent, and too late for re-consideration.

Why do I think this? There is an element of truth to everything we understand...even myths and legends. Fantasy can not work unless based in some kind of facts.

There are specific ground rules in the Bible, and historically prove to be relevent.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child" is one. Woman shall desire after man, but he will rule over her, seems to be another. A fool and his money are soon parted. Do not discard the wife of your youth. Man's greatest wisdom is but the foolishness of God. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Honor mother and father. Love neighbor as self. Do not take God's name in vain. Can not serve two masters. Honor the sabbath and keep it holy.

We see the results today for failing to adhere to these "laws", and we wonder why the world is going to hell in a handbag...

Let's step away from the bible for a second. The seven noahidic laws (the first laws man was given), we don't even keep them, but if we did, the world would be a different place.

Only Christianity commands us to consider others first, and act accordingly. Nothing about Christianity is about SELF first. No other faith does this.

Every law in Christianity states among other things, "Thou shalt put others before self" Whether it be God or neighbor, or family, or stranger or friend or enemy...all others come first.

Now, try applying that to everyday life...The most perfect and simplest of faiths is also the hardest to adhere to...because of self centered attitude.

Even Ghandi recognized the impossiblity of a perfect "Christian". Though he did acknowledge those that were close...

Yeah, I think Christianity is the only true faith. It is the only one that could help us to become "perfect", if we were up to the task...

Maybe that's why Jesus came here. We aren't up to the task, and so in His perfect wisdom, He decided to help give us an edge. In otherwords, He would take up our imperfections so we could consentrate on what we could accomplish.

He set an example along the way, that we could pattern ourselves after.

See, the only time that man is even close to perfect, is when God is working with him.

Jesus is the only one to ever do that.

v/r

Joshua

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi JM -

It's probably me, but I still read your posts to imply that simply because you exist, Christ exists in you – as if Christ was a quality of your nature – which Scripturally is not the case.

Christ, as the light of men, does not mean that every man is enlightened.
(If I take your posts at face value, we're all enlightened, we're all perfect, and the world is as it should be, which I don't think you mean.)

Equally, you are not that light – the light is within you – recognition of that fact is where the work of the Christian begins, not where it ends.

The Jews generally believed that man was animated by the breath of God, and on the death of man that breathe returned, and man went to the grave.

Christ taught that it is possible to unite with the animating Spirit – but this 'gift' is a grace and not a given – unless we know we are faultless and without sin.

Thomas

Hello Thomas,

Yes, You are correct in your assumption. Because I exist, Christ exists. But it is more correctly said that because Christ exists, I exist. Now that light which is Christ is in all men/women however it is not made manifest and in that sense you could sayl, it is not there. But the truth is that all are enlightened but all are not aware of the light to its fullnes. John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Here present tense is used ... every man that 'cometh' ... is coming or appears

Now the reason I know this is not just because the writing says so but when I awakened to the spirit of God, he dropped in me the knowing that I had never been alone or without him. It is just not possible. Acknowledgement has nothing to do with presence. ie: The sun is always shining even when it is obscured by clouds. It is always present but not always seen. The same with Christ. Christ is the life of all. Nothing exists without that light. It may be obscured but it is always present in all. One has to discern writings. They can not be taken literally: Jesus said, "you are of your father the devil" to some but he was well aware that the devil did not create or give life to anyone. These sayings are deep and can often be taken incorrectly.

Yes, the world is as it is and not out of God's plan. The words 'should be' is purely hypothetical. On a higher level of understanding, the world is perfect as it is. It would take an hour to explain it to you and then only your reason would be convinced. It is necessary for God to show you himself.

You say I am not that light. You are correct from the perspective of the flesh which is not the 'real you' anyway. You are not flesh and blood having a spiritual experience Thomas. You are Spirit have a flesh experience. Find out who you really are and your statement concerning this will disappear. You are dead and your life is hid in Christ. Reckon yourself dead to the flesh but alive unto the spirit. These are not to be just words.

I have no comment at this time on your last point.

Love in Christ,
JM

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Hello Thomas,

Yes, You are correct in your assumption. Because I exist, Christ exists.

Not even close. Christ existed before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.

You are nothing without Christ. You certainly are not a force to be reckonned with on the Cosmic scale.


What arrogance...what a foolish notion. Because of you, Christ exists?

Joseph...is that what you really meant to say?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Q

Only Christianity commands us to consider others first, and act accordingly. Nothing about Christianity is about SELF first. No other faith does this.

Every law in Christianity states among other things, "Thou shalt put others before self" Whether it be God or neighbor, or family, or stranger or friend or enemy...all others come first.

Now, try applying that to everyday life...The most perfect and simplest of faiths is also the hardest to adhere to...because of self centered attitude.

I always thought that the forbidden fruit coming from a tree at the center of the garden had special significance--in regards to self-centeredness:

Originally Posted by Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
<...>
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Hmm...self-centered judgement?