Jesus-Neither Literal Son of God nor God

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Bandit

did you ever hear of the divine flesh doctrine? not sure who started that but it was some kind of Christianity. they try to say Jesus did not have real flesh & blood, like he had some kind of synthetic flesh or whatever.
i dont think very many people still believe that way.

No, no. I don't mean "divine flesh" in the manner you are speaking. I mean that the complete embryo is human, but created by God in utero.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

How do we know that all 46 chromosomes weren't entirely from God? That perhaps the embryo was totally formed without a donor egg from Mary and that she served as a surrogate mother to Jesus?

Actually Dondi, I think your answer here makes the most sense. The whole discussion around Mary contributing chromosomes, or God rearranging all her chromosomes, or whatever, just misses the point.

God made Adam out of clay--why should the idea of God creating a baby in Mary be any harder to believe? Or require and further explantion?

peace,
lunamoth

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Actually Dondi, I think your answer here makes the most sense. The whole discussion around Mary contributing chromosomes, or God rearranging all her chromosomes, or whatever, just misses the point.

God made Adam out of clay--why should the idea of God creating a baby in Mary be any harder to believe? Or require and further explantion?

peace,
lunamoth

Exactly, lunamoth!

In fact, I was going to bring up that very point in regard to Adam. Thank you for beating me to the punch!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Exactly, lunamoth!

In fact, I was going to bring up that very point in regard to Adam. Thank you for beating me to the punch!

I see you posted this idea at about the same time as I was making my post. I might modify mine slightly, while recognizing that I still don't "know" how but rather just have faith that it happened, to say that God manifested in the womb of Mary. The incarnation, a Mystery.

Fully God and fully human! It's a wave, no it's a particle!

peace,
lunamoth

[MagnetMan]

I believe that Jesus was an ordinary man, the son of a simple carpenter. As the first human on record to preach a gospel of Love for neighbor and non-violent resistence to oppressors, it has made him the most insightful social philospher of all time. This ethical insight was especially significant at a time when all cultures unquestionably revered military might as right. It was the mass attraction of others to his gospel of peace that got him executed as a dangerous insurrectionsit by the powers that be. (Rome of course did not mind his peaceful doctrine, but Jewish resistence leaders did.) His deification was the result of decision made by the first ecumunical Council of Bishops at Nicosea in the 3rd Century, who had to struggle to establsih Christianity in the face of all other religious beliefs, who's founders where all God-men. This in itself was a hold-over from Bronze Age ancestral and totemic worship, in which each clan believed itself as direct descendants of God. That early expediency of the Church, which created the creed that emphasised Christ's deity and his mother's virginity, and not his peace message, created the anti-Christ backlash that our western cultures have lived with ever since - culminating in two world wars and the present ideology of pre-emptive attacks on our enemies - which is about as far away from what Jesus preached as we can get. It is ironical that even your present president does not "get it."

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I believe that Jesus was an ordinary man, the son of a simple carpenter. As the first human on record to preach a gospel of Love for neighbor and non-violent resistence to oppressors, it has made him the most insightful social philospher of all time. This ethical insight was especially significant at a time when all cultures unquestionably revered military might as right. It was the mass attraction of others to his gospel of peace that got him executed as a dangerous insurrectionsit by the powers that be. His deification was the result of decision made by the first ecumunical Council of Bishops at Nicosea in the 3rd Century, who had to struggle to establsih Christianity in the face of all other religious beliefs, who's founders where all God-men. This in itself was a hold-over from Bronze Age ancestral and totemic worship, in which each clan believed itself as direct descendants of God. That early expediency of the Church, which created the creed that emphasised Christ's deity and his mother's virginity, and not his peace message, created the anti-Christ backlash that our western cultures have lived with ever since - culminating in two world wars and the present ideology of pre-emptive attacks on our enemies - which is about as far away from what Jesus preached as we can get. It is ironical that even your present president does not "get it."

You say that the idea of Jesus' divinity was a result of Counsel of Bishops od Nicosea in the 3rd century, but if there are many biblical passages that infer Jesus' divinity, most notably in the book of John (John 1:1, 14; John 8:, John 14:7, to name a few). Or even in Revelation 21:6,7:

"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1. We also know he give s the water of life (John 4). So right after in verse 7, Jesus declares that He will be his God to those who overcome.

So the idea of Jesus' divinity came long before the 3rd century Counsel.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

You say that the idea of Jesus' divinity was a result of Counsel of Bishops od Nicosea in the 3rd century, but if there are many biblical passages that infer Jesus' divinity, most notably in the book of John (John 1:1, 14; John 8:, John 14:7, to name a few). Or even in Revelation 21:6,7:

"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

We know Jesus is the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1. We also know he give s the water of life (John 4). So right after in verse 7, Jesus declares that He will be his God to those who overcome.

So the idea of Jesus' divinity came long before the 3rd century Counsel.

The Bible's central problem, like all written communication, which is essentially artificial, has always been one of too literal interpretation. (Which is why Socratese refused to write down anything) I am sure that I can give you a different meaning for every quote in it.

St John, the son of Zebedee, was Jesus' cousin. His mother, Salome was Mary' sister. He knew Jesus as a man. The fact that I believe Jeus was a man, makes him all the more remarkable in my view. Gods can do anything. Men struggle to establish a truth.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

The Bible's central problem, like all written communication, which is essentially artificial, has always been one of too literal interpretation. (Which is why Socratese refused to write down anything) I am sure that I can give you a different meaning for every quote in it.

St John, the son of Zebedee, was Jesus' cousin. His mother, Salome was Mary' sister. He knew Jesus as a man. The fact that I believe Jeus was a man, makes him all the more remarkable in my view. Gods can do anything. Men struggle to establish a truth.

All I was saying is that the idea of the divinity of Christ started well before any third century counsels. The texts are pretty clear to me..the Word was God...the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us...ergo, logically one comes to the conclusion that Jesus, at least according to the Scriptures, was divine. That seems plainly obvious to me. If language was THAT artificial, then we couldn't communicate at all, now would we? I really can't see how one could not see this, even if you don't believe it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

The Bible's central problem, like all written communication, which is essentially artificial, has always been one of too literal interpretation. (Which is why Socratese refused to write down anything) I am sure that I can give you a different meaning for every quote in it.

St John, the son of Zebedee, was Jesus' cousin. His mother, Salome was Mary' sister. He knew Jesus as a man. The fact that I believe Jeus was a man, makes him all the more remarkable in my view. Gods can do anything. Men struggle to establish a truth.

Verses written before 100 AD (250 years before the first counsil), that clearly Give Jesus the title of God:

1. "For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." Roman 9:5 (NASV-other versions containing the same clear reference to Jesus as God are: NIV, NLT, KJV, and NKJV).
2. "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." 1 John 5:20.
3. "Simon Peter, a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:1.
4. “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, ...." Titus 2:13.
5. "Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." Acts 20:28.
6. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1.
7. "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John 1:18.
8. "Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.'' Thomas answered and said to Him, ""My Lord and my God!''" John 20:28.
9. "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11. This verse clearly refers to Jesus having the same name as God: Yahweh. (See also Hebrews 1:4).
10. "But of the Son He says, "Your Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.'' Heb. 1:8-9.
11. "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they." Hebrews 1:4. This scripture has Jesus inheriting a "more excellent" name than even the angels. In light of Hebrews 1:8-9, the only logical name this could be is the name of God: Yahweh. Names that were higher than all the angels were rather rare in Second Temple Judaism's literature that was higher than all the angels, as well as meeting the aforementioned attributes. (See also Philippians 2:9-11).
12. To conserve space I collapsed into one section the many New Testament references to Jesus as "I AM," a title uniquely used for God by Judaism (Gen. 26:24; 28:13; Exod. 6:6; 20:2, 5; Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:5; Hosea 13:4; Joel 2:27; Isah. 43:25; Isah. 51:12; Isah. 52:6). The majority are found in the Gospel of John (6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5 ), but there are also uses in the other Gospels as well (Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; 13:6; Luke 21:8; 24:39; and possibly Mark 14:61-52).

You opine that believing does not make it so. The same can be said for not believing, not making it so. The only thing presented here so far is a "catch 22".

You are correct in stating that Jesus was a man. He is also God to many persons, and put away His God-head for a time.

The irony about faith, is that for those who choose to believe, no explanation is neccessary, and for those who choose not to believe, no explanation is possible...

my thoughts

Q

[wil]

If it is so cut and dry why wasn't it accepted by so many early churches? 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. And why the fistfight between the bishops regarding diefying him? 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.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

All I was saying is that the idea of the divinity of Christ started well before any third century counsels. The texts are pretty clear to me..the Word was God...the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us...ergo, logically one comes to the conclusion that Jesus, at least according to the Scriptures, was divine. That seems plainly obvious to me. If language was THAT artificial, then we couldn't communicate at all, now would we? I really can't see how one could not see this, even if you don't believe it.

I respect and applaud your belief in Christ as God. Any belief in God is better than no belief. The probelm is that no other religion shares your interpretation of what was meant in our early scriptures - especially when we insist on Jesus as the "Only Son of God" That is offensive. They too believe in their prophets as the chosen of God - which as a recent cartoon reveals, we find offensive. The men who wrote all early scriptures, not only ours, were far more naive than we are today. We need to be more decerning when we interpret what was on their minds and in their hearts when they urged their people towards the good.
The fundamental statement in all religious scripture is that there is only one God and He is everywhere present at all times. Endlessly quoting chapter and verse of increasingly redundant scriptures serves no constructive purpose. Of course Jesus was God. We are all children of God, born holy, made flesh and dwell on this earth, instructed to do His work. Now lets get on with it.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You opine that believing does not make it so. The same can be said for not believing, not making it so. The only thing presented here so far is a "catch 22".

You are correct in stating that Jesus was a man. He is also God to many persons, and put away His God-head for a time.

The irony about faith, is that for those who choose to believe, no explanation is neccessary, and for those who choose not to believe, no explanation is possible...

my thoughts

Q

I am not sure if you are inferring here that I am an unbeliever. If so, that is not true. I am an ordained minister of religion and have preached God's word as it is revealed to me, for a good thirty years..

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I respect and applaud your belief in Christ as God. Any belief in God is better than no belief. The probelm is that no other religion shares your interpretation of what was meant in our early scriptures - especially when we insist on Jesus as the "Only Son of God" That is offensive. They too believe in their prophets as the chosen of God - which as a recent cartoon reveals, we find offensive. The men who wrote all early scriptures, not only ours, were far more naive than we are today. We need to be more decerning when we interpret what was on their minds and in their hearts when they urged their people towards the good.
The fundamental statement in all religious scripture is that there is only one God and He is everywhere present at all times. Endlessly quoting chapter and verse of increasingly redundant scriptures serves no constructive purpose. Of course Jesus was God. We are all children of God, born holy, made flesh and dwell on this earth, instructed to do His work. Now lets get on with it.

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.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

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 respect both what you have to say and the sincerity of intent. But I reitterate the fact that Biblical interpretation is a two-edged sword that has so far, had disasterous consrequences, together with all the good that has come from it. It believe it is time for mass change. For instance: If I went back to the end of the Bronze Age and started quoting to you generations of oral tribal law that stated that my clan's earliest anscester was a direct descendant of God, and that all other clans were non-divine, you, who senses the arrival of a new Iron Age of scriptural dogma, would find that oral-based view naively redundant - even though I was sincerely stated. We have entered a New Nuclear Age that requires a new and more ontological system of spiritual teaching. We have to begin to accept that the Old Age is dying and it's belief systems no longer serve the societies for which it was intended. This is my belief. I cannot and will not force you to accept it.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I respect both what you have to say and the sincerity of intent. But I reitterate the fact that Biblical interpretation is a two-edged sword that has so far, had disasterous consrequences, together with all the good that has come from it. It believe it is time for mass change. For instance: If I went back to the end of the Bronze Age and started quoting to you generations of oral tribal law that stated that my clan's earliest anscester was a direct descendant of God, and that all other clans were non-divine, you, who senses the arrival of a new Iron Age of scriptural dogma, would find that oral-based view naively redundant - even though I was sincerely stated. We have entered a New Nuclear Age that requires a new and more ontological system of spiritual teaching. We have to begin to accept that the Old Age is dying and it's belief systems no longer serve the societies for which it was intended. This is my belief. I cannot and will not force you to accept it.

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