Jesus-Neither Literal Son of God nor God

[Dondi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[MagnetMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.