Jesus is not God....part 2

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

So, while Jesus was on earth, He revealed the knowledge of what remained hidden, and told people to worship God, not His cage or human form. For God is one.

yes, god is spirit and we must worship in spirit. although jesus cured the sick and it was visible some still did not believe, he also forgave sins and this is spiritual and yet some who could not see believed, and blessed are they.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

that is incorrect in that there are only a few passages, in fact there are many passages that speak about the attributes of the son of god and the attributes of god the father and how the are one in the same. and there are passages that show christ is prayed to, worshiped, and is called Lord God and Saviour. and there are passages that show that when christ was calling himself the son of god to those that were intimate with his preaching and what he was claiming understood it to be that he was calling himself god. and there are passages that show how god declares his son and calls him god, even with his glory.

No question there are many such passages. At the same time, since the linguistic/philological research that predates the Jesus Seminar by roughly a generation or two seems less axe-grinding than (some of) the Seminar's work, I take pretty seriously that earlier scholarship that singles out certain particular strata as especially close to the time that Jesus lived as a teacher in the Middle East.

This is why I singled out those cited remarks in my previous posts. I was in fact reasonably thorough in singling out all such remarks that could possibly be interpreted in the way you describe, and I honestly feel that the nugget of what Jesus is claiming for himself is already in those five passages.

I do plead guilty to placing much store in what those earliest sources indicate Jesus himself said. What others might say about him at the time, as shown in other texts, is still worth a great deal, of course. But that is at least one remove from what Jesus said; and what later sources indicate concerning what Jesus himself said, though not at the same remove, is still not as direct as in these earliest strata I used in my previous post. I don't, in fact, think those earliest sources necessarily gainsay anything traditionally understood by believers, and in confining myself to Jesus's own remarks there -- to such as are found in the earliest sources -- all I'm trying to do is pinpoint the least uncertain aspects of Jesus's own understanding of who and what he is.

Please, I'm still sincerely interested in whether or not you and others here find yourselves in agreement as to those three (among the five I cited) that seem most unequivocal in claiming direct "Son"ship -- of a "blood-tie" and exclusive kind -- of God, versus the other two that are more suggestive and seem less concrete(?). The latter two may essentially say the same thing, but are we agreed that the three I singled out of the five are still the most straightforward? Or could they each -- all five -- be theoretically given a reading that says something slightly different from an unequivocally "blood-tie"-type exclusive "Son"ship-of-God interpretation?

Thanks,

Operacast

[Ahanu]

The latter two may essentially say the same thing, but are we agreed that the three I singled out of the five are still the most straightforward?

Most definitely.

"All things have been revealed to my understanding by an unusual spiritual connection to the Father of us all, and only the Father is able to single out those who can be his spiritual Son by their unusual level of connection and spiritual understanding, and only the Son who has had this special insight into the Father can know if he is a true Son of the Father. And when the Son knows that he is the Son of the Father by the awakening of a deep insight into the essence of what makes the Father tick, then knowledge by others of the Father is also possible, especially through the Son's personally choosing to reveal the Father's essence to those others, who likewise learn deeply of the essence of the Father, thus becoming Sons and Daughters of the Father as well."

-- Is this reading too much into this passage?

No, as you can see, I was playing around with it myself. It seems to be pretty on point.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Zoroastrianism proclaims the oneness of God too, but I'm having trouble finding the appropriate quotes.

Greetings Sean,
Zarathushtra also perceived the Sun Aura -Ahura Mazdao - and knew he would one day incarnate on earth as Jesus of Nazareth.

Now why do Christians then call the Sun God the Creator God?

Dr.Steiner explains:

The Christ figure.....— the Lord and Ruler of the Sun planet — is a picture of utmost devotion, entire devotion to all that is around Him in the world...... . Christ appears as wholly given up, in devotion, to all that is around Him in the great wide world.

The great wide world was not then as it is now. If we were to transport ourselves in these days to the present Sun, then, looking outwards in all directions as from the centre of a circle, we should perceive in the first place the twelve Signs of the Zodiac. These were not then externally visible; but instead, twelve great Forms, twelve Beings were present who let their words ring forth from the depths of the darkness, — outer space being of course not then filled with light. What kind of words were these? They were words — the word “word” is again only a makeshift, to indicate what is here meant — they were words that told of primeval times, of times that even then were in a remote and ancient past. The twelve were twelve World-Initiators.

Today we behold standing in the directions of these twelve World-Initiators the twelve Signs of the Zodiac, but from them resounds, for the soul that is open to the whole world, the original being of the Unspoken Word of Worlds, that could take form in the twelve Voices. .........
Christ on the other hand, gave Himself up to the Impression of this Word of the Worlds, received It in its fulness and entirety into Himself, so that this Christ Soul was now the Being that united in Himself all the great Secrets of the World that sounded into Him through the inexpressible Word. Such is the contrast that presents itself, — the Christ Who receives the Word of the Worlds,.....

The Christ, however, had during the old Sun time received the Word of the Worlds, and this Word of the Worlds has the quality of kindling itself to new light in the soul by which It is received; so that from that time forward the Word of the Worlds became in the Christ Light, and the planet of which the Christ was ruler, the Sun,.....

[source:elib.com]

So there you have it- mystery solved in a most remarkable way (though not fully understood till the end of the Earth age). But it does feel right, doesn't it? Certainly for those not weighed down by dogma.

Christ Jesus is indeed God made flesh. The Incarnation was the "turning point of time".

And on this Christmas Solstice I offer a poem by T.L.Harris:
HYMN OF THE INCARNATION

In the midnight of the Ages,
In the midnight dark and lone,
When the heroes and the sages
In life’s battle faint had grown;
When the world’s great heart was lying
Like a corpse upon its bier,
Then, through heaven, a voice went crying
“God is near!”

In the midnight of the nations,
When the Morning Land was dead,
And to woes and lamentations
Earth in agony was wed;
Rose a cry of fearful wailing
From the stormy nether sphere,
“Lo! the pagan orb is paling,
God is near!”

In the midnight of Earth’s errors,
When the serpent’s monstrous head,
From its eyes shot lurid terrors
While upon her breasts it fed,
When the faith in the Hereafter
Had no prophet, bard, or seer
Rang a voice, through sin’s wild laughter -
“God is near!”

Where a virgin, pure, adoring,
Worshipped God who reigns above,
Came a glorious outburst, pouring
From Jehovah’s heart of love;
And an angel spake, “Hail Maiden;
In thy inmost bosom sphere
Thou with child from Heaven art laden -
God is near!”

Through the seraph universes
Shone a flame of circling light;
While dark Hades rang with curses
It unfolded form and might.
Then a Child to earth was given,
And He stood beside Earth’s bier
Crying loud, “Arise forgiven,
God is here!”

As a meteor star that falleth
Sank the world from out its place;
Or a ravished bride that calleth
From a serpent’s loathed embrace;
Lo! through storms of lava ashes
Came a voice, her heart to cheer,
Thundering through the lightning flashes,
“God is here!”

Who shall tell the solemn story
Of the Form that God possessed?
Of the temples pierced and gory
And the wounds in feet and breast?
All the angels worshipped round Him
When the bloody cross was near,
Crying to the men who bound Him,
“God is here!”

In His Love’s transfiguration,
When He rose, the world to free,
Seen by every angel nation
In DIVINE HUMANITY,
All the universe adoring
Saw the end of evil near,
Crying loud, in one outpouring,
“God is here!”


Happy Christmas to All,
Br.Bruce

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Most definitely.

So then, what do you take away from the three, re Jesus's own apparent perspective?

Best,

Operacast

[Ahanu]

Luke (Q): 10:21-22 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."


Luke(Q): 22:28-30 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Mark: 14:61-62 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 14.62And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Christ is confirming that station that is alluded to in the tradition: "I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself."

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

that is incorrect in that there are only a few passages, in fact there are many passages that speak about the attributes of the son of god and the attributes of god the father and how the are one in the same

Oh I totally agree with you. Jesus manifests the qualities of God on Earth: love, kindness, forebearance, patience, chastity, etc.

. and there are passages that show christ is prayed to, worshiped, and is called Lord God and Saviour

Oh yeah definitely. As I said earlier, most of these come from Corinthians, etc. and not Christ's own words. I think they're true though because Jesus can speak for God and act for God.

Christ's own words testify as quoted earlier that the Father is greater than Him and that it is He who doeth the works. And the John 1:18 quote that says that God has not been seen at any time I think should be sufficient. Perhaps not for everyone, this has been a hard issue for some people for centuries.

and there are passages that show that when christ was calling himself the son of god to those that were intimate with his preaching and what he was claiming understood it to be that he was calling himself god. and there are passages that show how god declares his son and calls him god, even with his glory.

Feel free to post these if you wish to discuss.

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Greetings Sean,
Zarathushtra also perceived the Sun Aura -Ahura Mazdao - and knew he would one day incarnate on earth as Jesus of Nazareth.

Greetings Bruce Michael,

Um, I'm aware that in Zoroastrianism there are the dualistic forces of Ahura Mazda (God) and Ahriman (Satan).

I'm quite sure that it's possible that Zoroaster prophesied Jesus (in fact he prophesied some really cool stuff ). Care to give a quote??

Now why do Christians then call the Sun God the Creator God?

I'm not sure that they do. In fact I've never heard of this before, care to give some quotes?

Dr.Steiner explains:
[...]
So there you have it- mystery solved in a most remarkable way (though not fully understood till the end of the Earth age). But it does feel right, doesn't it? Certainly for those not weighed down by dogma.

Dear Bruce, I've never heard of any religion (except Hinduism to a very limited degree) being associated with a Zodiac and definitely not Christianity. I'm not weighed down by dogma at all. (there is no dogma in my religion)

Christ Jesus is indeed God made flesh. The Incarnation was the "turning point of time".

I think that Jesus is God made flesh too, just not literally, and indeed it was a changing point in time for humanity.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Christ is confirming that station that is alluded to in the tradition: "I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself."

Thanks much. Any thoughts on the two Thomas passages?

Originally Posted by Operacast

The Thomas ones also split off -- for me -- into tantalizing versus overt. Thomas:61 --



Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and other will live." Salome said to him, "Who are You, man, that You, as though from the One, have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?" Jesus said to her, "I am He who exists from the Undivided. I was given some of the things of my Father." <Salome said,> "I am Your disciple." <Jesus said to her,> "Therefore I say, if he is <undivided>, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."



-- seems more tantalizing than overt. Just who is the Father here? Is the "Undivided" and "my Father" one and the same? Or are they two different entities? Could there even be a joke here aimed at a partly endearing single-mindedness in the ways of Jesus' earthly father, Joseph, and is Jesus self-deprecatingly conceding his own tendency to stubbornness (far-fetched, yes, but does anything in this text directly contradict such a reading)? This entire passage just doesn't seem all that straightforward to me.

As for the other Thomas remark, do others here also see it as essentially implying the same thing as Luke:22:28-30? Or is it less straightforward than the Luke remark? It's Thomas:99:



The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and Your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of My Father are My brothers and My mother. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of My Father."



To me, this is pretty much of a piece with Luke:22:28-30. Again, a personal inheritance is strongly implied. Thoughts?

Cheers,

Operacast

[mee]

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Just to add some more stuff to the discussion ()

There are only a few passages to look at in which one could try to say that Jesus is God.

10:30 I and my Father are one.
(King James Bible, John)

Of course, the context of this passage is never posted.

10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
(King James Bible, John)

Jesus is talking about the deeds that he does and that he does them in God's name. In fact he is saying that the Father is greater than all, and in another passage Jesus specifically says that the Father is greater than him.

4:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(King James Bible, John)

Then there's the beginning of John

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 10;30 is refering to one in unity of purpose . and this thought goes along with the context. so we can see that the bible does not teach that Jesus is God .

Jesus is separate from God he is Gods son . but they are in unity of thought and purpose ,the same way that his followers are also in unity of thought and purpose

I and the Father are one.”


.Or, “at unity.” Lit., “one (thing).” Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation.

JOHN 10;30


(John 10:38) But if I am doing them, even though YOU do not believe me, believe the works, in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.”



(John 17:11) “Also, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are.


Yes his followers would be one , but it didnt make them God .




(John 17:21) in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth.

[Ahanu]

Thanks much. Any thoughts on the two Thomas passages?

Yes.

Jesus said to her, "I am He who exists from the Undivided. I was given some of the things of my Father."

Perhaps Jesus is saying that His heart is undivided in God's love. Any other division would lead to spiritual death, so Salome said: "I am your disciple." In other words, an adherent of the heart of God, just like Jesus is a follower of God. Uh, I suppose this is not the Salome that wanted the death of John the Baptist?

"Therefore I say, if he is <undivided>, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."

Sounds like Mark 9:47 and Matthew 5:29. Sin divides the heart, but God made our hearts to be one with His.

Just who is the Father here? Is the "Undivided" and "my Father" one and the same? Or are they two different entities?

In my opinion, yes they are one. The "Undivided" is like the "the God in us". Like, our hearts inside His heart. Hope that does not sound korny, but I think you get my point.

Could there even be a joke here aimed at a partly endearing single-mindedness in the ways of Jesus' earthly father, Joseph, and is Jesus self-deprecatingly conceding his own tendency to stubbornness (far-fetched, yes, but does anything in this text directly contradict such a reading)? This entire passage just doesn't seem all that straightforward to me.

You lost me here.

[Ahanu]

Is the "Undivided" and "my Father" one and the same? Or are they two different entities?

Just to be more specific. They are one, yet the "Undivided" is like the "light" of "my Father".

Again, this would be going back to the Sun and mirror analogy. Abdul-Baha explains this subject more clearly than I.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Just to be more specific. They are one, yet the "Undivided" is like the "light" of "my Father".

Again, this would be going back to the Sun and mirror analogy. Abdul-Baha explains this subject more clearly than I.

Thanks for the follow-up. Hope to follow this up myself at some point very soon after the holiday -- time issues, I'm afraid!:-)

BTW, any thoughts on the other Thomas passage?

Originally Posted by Operacast

As for the other Thomas remark, do others here also see it as essentially implying the same thing as Luke:22:28-30? Or is it less straightforward than the Luke remark? It's Thomas:99:



The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and Your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of My Father are My brothers and My mother. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of My Father."



To me, this is pretty much of a piece with Luke:22:28-30. Again, a personal individuated "Son"ship seems strongly implied. Thoughts?

Many thanks,

Operacast

[Ahanu]

Thanks for the follow-up. Hope to follow this up myself at some point very soon after the holiday -- time issues, I'm afraid!:-)

BTW, any thoughts on the other Thomas passage?

Overall I think the first quote from Thomas is saying to be "one" just as the Father is "one". Well, that is what I am getting from it.

As for the other Thomas remark, do others here also see it as essentially implying the same thing as Luke:22:28-30?

Yes. He is using the terms "eat" and "drink" in which is to do the will of God.

To me, this is pretty much of a piece with Luke:22:28-30. Again, a personal individuated "Son"ship seems strongly implied. Thoughts?

Yes.

Please continue. . .

[farhan]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The so-called "Christian belief" on Jesus' relationship with God is a matter of doctrine. You may hear one bunch of Christian say they believe something and be convinced that we all believe that, but you only have to search the Web to find out just how many different views there are among Christians.

The most important thing is what the first-century Christians, the first generation of Christians, believed. The New Testament is a written tradition based on beliefs in the first century. As has been said by others, perhaps not on this thread, but elsewhere, the religion existed before the written tradition was produced.

First-century Christianity could be argued to have not been driven by doctrine or dogma, due to the fact that they wrote things down so late in the first century. I believe first-century Christianity was most probably based on experience, not doctrine and dogma. It was spread by a word-of-mouth, oral tradition based on that experience. When it became clear that Jesus wasn't going to return as soon as expected, they decided to write things down.

Many people (both Christian and non-Christian) mistake the New Testament for the actual religion itself. I see the New Testament as more like an image of the first-century experience. My view is that to rediscover Christianity, we must try and imagine what the first-century Christians believed and what they experienced. The purpose of the New Testament attempts to project and describe the first-century experience. It does not define or prescibe Christianity in its entirety and totality. Because it is an experience, there is no need for such a thing.

The idea of the Trinity was influenced mostly by the writings of "John" and Paul. Consider in particular the opening passage of the Gospel of John, where it says, "The Logos was with God and the Logos was God" and that "the Logos became flesh." People typically think John is defining Logos as Jesus, but I think it's more of a description of how Jesus was acting out the purpose of the Logos, and how the phenomenon of the Logos was expanding to include his followers as well. They forget that the author never defined Jesus as Logos, or vice versa. He simply says, "it became flesh," and that could mean a whole number of different things. The fact that he doesn't define the relationship says to us that we shouldn't try and define it either. We should simply leave it as a description.

The trouble, I think is that people think the terms, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Logos and Christ define concrete concepts with precise meanings rather than just observable or experiental phenomena. Christianity was conceived in a predominantly Jewish environment and culture, but over time, the proportion of Gentiles to Jews increased. Jews reading the Gospel of John back then would probably have interpreted it differently than the Gentiles that would make up most of the Christian Church in the 2nd centuries and onwards. The New Christians (who were mostly Gentiles) in the 2nd centuries and onwards would have read the Gospel of John and probably wondered, is Jesus God? They would have been lost as to what the author was trying to do. I think it's important, first of all, to recognise that Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Logos and Christ are names, labels and titles.

Judaism has/had different uses for "names" than Greek/Gnostic philosophy did. Take for example, names like HaShem (secondary name for God), Adonai (Lord), Shalom (Peace) and Shekhinah (Manifestation of God). Judaism uses names not to define anything concrete, but to describe an experience of God. Gentile philosophers and thinkers would probably have thought "John" was talking about something concrete or about "idealised, absolute concepts." It's very common in philosophy to "idealise" and make something "absolute" because universalism is more useful than something with subjective meaning. The idea of Jesus being God, the Son being co-equal with the Father, the doctrine of Three Persons in One, etc., are all attempts to idealise the concepts of Father, Son, etc. I doubt that the author of the Gospel of John ever intended to define anything concrete by these terms. You could say that it's an exercise in apologetics. When people formulate such concepts, they are trying to make it sound more universal so that it becomes more palatable to the targets of apologetics.

Because the New Christians (mostly Gentiles) did not have a background in Judaism, as Christianity drifted further away from the Jewish environment in which it was conceived and as Christianity became increasing dominated by a mindset that saw the terms Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Logos and Christ as names defining something concrete, the notion of the Trinity and "Jesus is God" idea developed.

....