Jesus is not God....part 2

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dor

The fact that people can not grasp the elementary fact of who Jesus is to this day baffles me.

So what when I goggle my name I get 709000.

When I google mine I get all kinds of hits for the founder of the Methodist church...haven't seen my actual name yet, it's so far down the list!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, mens_sana!

Originally Posted by mens_sana

But let's get one thing out of the way first. The DH/RT is not anti-semitic.

I'm afraid this subject of anti-semitic association with the founding members of the DH/RT is completely outside the realm of my understanding. I only know of some things in a very general sense such as the Q document and reduction back to the earliest texts showing how some lessons and passages *may* have been added or deleted, but I am not familiar with any part with any depth. Where I agree with BB most decidedly regards the insistance of an outside group dictating how a long established faith should conduct their affairs. At the core this once again is the age old clash between two non-overlapping magesteria as Stephen Gould pointed out. Using science to dictate to religion is...counter-productive to be polite.

I noticed you sidestepped the issue I raised regarding Alighieri through Twain...there is a relevence to my having raised this issue.

Originally Posted by mens_sana

The overarching question is, “Do you feel free to read concepts and interpretations developed centuries and millennia after the texts were written back into those texts — and say that these later concepts and interpretations are what the author meant to say, despite the fact, the very solid fact that the author did NOT say them?” Considering that you think those ancient authors had something important to say to you, do you think telling THEM they said THIS, when those words and ideas aren't in their text, is respecting their intent?

Ah!, but show me where I specifically have specifically and with deliberate intent done this specific thing to any specific passage. I will presume the "you" you use is not the accusative sense.

In my own study, I look first to the historical and cultural context before deriving any interpretation. In matters where things seem a bit unclear, I tend towards the Strong's Concordance. Even then, with a word as pregnant with meaning as the word "logos," with history / culture / and definition, the translation still remains subject to poetic interpretation. Sometimes, which is my point regarding the more modern morality mythos I pointed to (Dante's "Divine Comedy," Swift's "Gulliver's Travels," Carroll's "Wonderland" and "Looking Glass," Kipling (a list of short stories not limited only to "the Jungle Book"), and Twain's "Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer."), even after context is considered a particular passage must be translated in relation to the whole.

It sounds to me that the academic position you are promoting fails to take such into consideration. Yet it is by this very method that a book as old as Dante's or as recent as Twain's (and many others, I am certain) can remain relevant across cultures and across centuries. I believe the literary term is "timeless." What literature is more timeless than a culture's sacred scriptures?

Originally Posted by mens_sana

As a theologian or a believer in ________ (fill in the blank), you can say “I think this interpretation of the text is correct,” but you do not have the right to say, “This interpretation is what the writer said.”

Agreed, as long as the preceeding caveats are kept in mind and brought to bear. How would you read "The Charge of the Light Brigade?" As a dry, unemotional, uninspired text to be read only one way? Is there no nuance? Is there no emotion? Is there no lesson to be learned? Is there no enlightenment to be sought?

Is the Light Brigade historically factual? Hard to say, but I doubt it was written or dictated by anyone with firsthand knowledge...they all died. That does not make that work of any less value, for all of the literary implications. In fairness, it is not a sacred text. Also in fairness, it is not looked upon with the same level of... adoration?... as a sacred text is and should be. But the essence of my argument remains that strict historicity and literal interpretation are fundamentally at odds with keeping a sacred text relevant as a culture / society grows and changes through the centuries. The position you endorse is also at odds with literary conventions from at least Greek and Roman times.

Poetry and prose are meant to be fluid, not static. How a can a writer write to a reader a hundred, seven hundred, or two thousand years later and still remain relevant? By writing to greater themes that speak to the human condition. BB is on to a very salient point, one I have highlighted elsewhere in other contexts. Academic arrogance does not supplant long standing spiritual and morally motivated instruction with "truth." Particularly if that "truth" is the destruction of all that is good and beautiful in that tradition. One might as well fire their pistols at the central figure of Christ in Leonardo DaVinci's portrait of the Last Supper for target practice. Oh, that's right, that was already done by some of Napolean's troops. So much for the after effects of the French enlightenment. <shrugs> Such an apt metaphor, what beauty or truth was to be had from that act?

I see reductionism when used alone to the exclusion of other linguistic devices as the metaphoric equivalent of painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. It is one tool, and only one tool, from a chest full of tools. In a craftsman's hands it can work wonders to build and illuminate. But in my experience it seems to usually be weilded by unskilled persons whose intent is questionable at best.


I also noticed you sidestepped my question regarding how your position impacts on your faith walk...

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Dor

The fact that people can not grasp the elementary fact of who Jesus is to this day baffles me.

So what when I goggle my name I get 709000.

Hello Dor,
That's not a logical segue. Those sites are not about YOU.

We can have a simple idea of who Jesus is, but we can keep on looking into the Mystery of Palestine because beyond it lies Infinity.

Don't ever limit your ideas on who Christ Jesus is.

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Hello Dor,
That's not a logical segue. Those sites are not about YOU.

We can have a simple idea of who Jesus is, but we can keep on looking into the Mystery of Palestine because beyond it lies Infinity.

Don't ever limit your ideas on who Christ Jesus is.

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

There is no mystery about Palestine, nor is it infinite. Palestine is a Roman title given to a piece of land they cleared of one group of people, in order to allow another group of people to take over. This was done circa 70 AD, and was done because the first group was a pain in the side to the Roman empire. The name Palestinian, isn't even an arabic/aramaic/jewish name. It is latin.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is no mystery about Palestine, nor is it infinite. Palestine is a Roman title given to a piece of land they cleared of one group of people, in order to allow another group of people to take over. This was done circa 70 AD, and was done because the first group was a pain in the side to the Roman empire. The name Palestinian, isn't even an arabic/aramaic/jewish name. It is latin.

Palestine was made great by the Events that happened there, Josh.


Lecture: VIII -- Spiritual Bells of Easter. II

We saw that it was the Christ Who proclaimed Himself to Moses in the burning thorn-bush and in thunder and lightning on Sinai; that it was the Christ and no other Power than He Who declared to Moses: “I am the I AM.” Out of the lightning on Sinai He gave the Ten Commandments as a preparation for His coming. Later, He appeared in microcosmic form in Palestine.

In the fire in our blood lives the same God Who had announced Himself in the heavenly fire and Who then, in the Mystery of Palestine, incarnated in a human body in order that His power might permeate the blood where the human fire has its seat.

World-evolution consists in the gradual spiritualisation of all that is material. In the material fire of the burning thorn-bush, and on Sinai, an outer sign of the Divine Power was revealed to Moses; but through the Christ Event this fire was spiritualised. Now, since the Christ Power has penetrated the earth, by what can the flame of the spiritual fire be perceived? By what can it be seen? By eyes of the spirit that have been opened and awakened through the Christ Impulse itself. To the eyes of the spirit this material fire of the thorn-bush is spiritualised. And ever since the Christ Impulse awakened the eyes of the spirit, this fire has worked in a spiritual way upon our world.

When was this fire seen again? It was seen again when the eyes of Saul, illumined by clairvoyance on the road to Damascus, beheld and recognised in the radiance of heavenly fire the One Who had fulfilled the Mystery of Golgotha. And so both Moses and Paul beheld the Christ: Moses beheld Him in the material fire in the burning thorn-bush and in the lightning on Sinai, but only inwardly could he be made aware that it was the Christ Who spoke with him. To the enlightened eyes of Paul, Christ revealed Himself from the spiritualised fire. Matter and Spirit are related in the evolution of worlds as the miraculous, material fire of the thorn-bush and of Sinai is related to the glory of the fire from the clouds that shone before Saul who had now become Paul.

Part of the Mystery of Palestine...

Yours Truly,
Br.Bruce

[bible_reader]

God is not a creation so how can he be the firstborn of all creation?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bible_reader

God is not a creation so how can he be the firstborn of all creation?

He's not.

[mee]

[quote=bible_reader;134930]
God is not a creation so how can he be the firstborn of all creation?[/quote


]Jesus is the first-born of Jehovahs creation, Jesus is not God , he is the first one created by Jehovah alone, everything else was created through Jesus the first born son.

[Quahom1]

[quote=mee;135061]

Originally Posted by bible_reader

God is not a creation so how can he be the firstborn of all creation?[/quote


]Jesus is the first-born of Jehovahs creation, Jesus is not God , he is the first one created by Jehovah alone, everything else was created through Jesus the first born son.

That is the crux of the matter. Your "opinion" concerning the "diety" of Jesus is not main stream Christianity's. Jesus, for most Christians, Is God.

[mee]

[quote=Quahom1;135118]

Originally Posted by mee

That is the crux of the matter. Your "opinion" concerning the "diety" of Jesus is not main stream Christianity's. Jesus, for most Christians, Is God.

i would say that the bible teaches that Jesus is not God , but the mainstream teaches that he is God .

[BlaznFattyz]

God the Father, as well as the prophets and the saints thru the Spirit, call the Son God.

[juantoo3]

Where did mens_sana go?

[bible_reader]

ok but God isnt a creation but Jesus is? And Jesus is called God? Hmmm somethings fishy!

[shamsery]

Does God eat ?

[Quahom1]

[quote=mee;135272]

Originally Posted by Mee1

i would say that the bible teaches that Jesus is not God , but the mainstream teaches that he is God .

In the book of John and in the book of Revelation, Jesus is called the Word of God. And in the book of John the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God. And in the book of Revelation Jesus' name is changed forever more to the Word of God. Therefore, according to scriptures Mee, Jesus IS GOD.

In chess, that is called Check Mate.