We all have different ways of looking at it, but here's how I see it at the moment. It may change in the near future, but this is how I see it now. Here is where my thoughts have led me:
The whole notion of Christ is a twist of a weird, mystical narrative where Jesus was both "God" and "not God" at the same time. He was "God" in the sense that he functioned as "God on earth." -- Colossians 1:15 and 2:9. He had God's holy character and personality. Because he "behaved like God" he was the "Man of Justice" -- the Son of Man. He challenged the religious leaders of the day, who taught people to follow dogma, ideology, a systematic and structural framework on which people were to approach life.
He was a holy man who lived by instinct and didn't need to follow rules. He was not a rule-follower or a man driven by ideology, but a man driven by intuition. He discerned the good and evil, the safe and unsafe (in spiritual terms), the light and darkness and the healthy and unhealthy (in spiritual terms again). The religious leaders who condemned him, did so on the grounds of ideology. Jesus condemned these religious leaders because of their devotion to ideology. Because ideology does not always reflect the true attitudes and intentions of human beings, and because Jesus was a good and innocent man, Jesus' remarks were justified whereas those of the religious leaders were not.
This is where the idea of Jesus being and not being "God" splits into a forked road.
Road 1 - In the sense that Jesus was God:
Jesus was not just a prophet or messenger. He was the Man of Justice, Son of Man, image and projection of God on earth. When he challenged the religious leaders, he did so as the Son of Man, "God on earth." In that sense, the religious leaders were challenging God Himself, since Jesus didn't just speak on God's authority; he spoke "as God." He spoke "as God" because he had God's own personality and character. Because the religious leaders claimed to act on God's behalf, this nullified their claim to be "men of God" because they condemned a man with God's own personality and character. They opposed God Himself. They had blasphemed against God by condemning His incarnate to death.
Jesus was therefore a symbolic means by which God said to the religious leaders: "You don't really speak for me."
Road 2 - In the sense that Jesus was not God:
Jesus was a man of instinct and intuition, not a man of ideology.
Jesus was a righteous man even though he didn't follow rules or ideology. The religious leaders condemned him, even though he was a pure, sinless man. Because they condemned an innocent man, the moral authority of the religious leaders and their ideology was nullified. The God they claimed to represent, the God of Justice, could not allow a righteous man, especially the Man of Justice, Son of Man, to be condemned and punished like that.
So the God of Justice ordered a new decree, a new Covenant: because He accepted Jesus, the Man of Justice, the man who died in defiance of the phoniness and manipulative nature of ideology, He would also accept those who accepted Christ. This is why those who believe in him are accepted by God -- because God accepted Jesus first. Basically, God accepts us because God accepted the Son of Man. We all seem think that Jesus was so good that God automatically accepted him. Not so. God accepted Jesus because despite the condemnation from the religious leaders, Jesus refused to kow-tow to ideology because it was oppressive. His death was brutal, unjust, evil, diabolical and downright immoral. It was a bloody and unjustified death.
Jesus died for such an honourable cause that God not only accepted him, but honoured him for his courage and bravery by decreeing that anybody who accepted him and honoured him too would be accepted by God as well. Opponents of Christianity often say that because Jesus rose again, the crucifixion wasn't "real." They say it means it was really a "cruci-fiction" -- a hoax. That simply misses the point!!! Sure, Jesus escaped, but not because he was immortal. It was because Jesus couldn't be condemned. His death nullified the moral authority of ideology. Ideology couldn't be justified.
Therefore, Jesus' physical and temporary "crucifixion" led to the permanent and eternal crucifixion of rules, dogma and ideology.
Where the Two Roads Merge Back Together:
Because of what Jesus did, we're accepted even if we don't follow certain rules or conform to some ideology.
Christ's purpose in coming into this world was purely sentimental. It was to establish a connection with God based on trust. He makes it possible for us to trust God because God sent Jesus to nullify the moral authority of ideology. It was like God being "diplomatic" and sending signals to us on how we were to get close to Him.
So why did Jesus need to be "God"? I think it's because that's how God could get the final word on the issue of ideology and its authority.
Some say "Jesus was God," others say "Jesus was not God." I think these two views are really incomplete views of the story of Christ. Christ had the dual nature of being "God" and "not God" at the same time. In a sense, his act was purely sentimental and symbolic. He was "God" in a symbolic sense. His legacy lives on. We are liberated from rules/ideology, and we are accepted by God because we accept what he did. Also, discovering a God that we can trust means that we are "saved." That's what I think it really means to be "saved" -- we discover a God we can trust. It is not a God who manipulates people through rules and ideology, but a God that is personal, intimate and sentimental.
That's my view on the foundation, I suppose.
