Could God become man?

[paul]

I think this is even an insulting question, not to Christians but to God.

God is after all God, if it was His will to become even one of us, then surely as God it is possible.
And if we say not, then isn't us who would limit God as being God, and limit Him to mans limit, and maybe mans mind.

I have heared some say God could not become man, for who would rule the world.
As if God has to be in one place at one time, as a human's limits.

But if we pray to God, many of us in different countries, and surely there must be many of us praying at even the exact same time, does God only hear one single person.
Is God only in one single part of the world at a time, only with one person at a time.

I beleive one God, could be ruler of the world, and come to us as one of us if He pleased.
I beleive it would not be an impossibilty for God, to both be a man, and God.
Being both the man on earth, and God in Heaven at the exact same time, I don't think that an impossibility for God

It may be a hard thing to comprehend, but if God wanted to become one of us, to be born of a virgin, to come into this world through a woman, to be born as all humans are in human form, to live among us, and to even prepared to die the most brutal death, as if even a criminal, spat on and humiliated as if even a blasphemer of God, a madman even.
Then could He not, if He so wished to do so?

 

[Thomas]

Hello Paul ... and amen.

It's interesting to see just how often it appears as if it is man who determines just what God can and cannot do.

The turning point for C.S. Lewis, when arguing with friends that Jesus Christ was all a myth, was the simple question, "but what if it were true?"

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Paul

While I do not accept Jesus (pbuh) as the son of G-d, I have to agree that G-d can do anything He wishes.

Have these people not heard of the term Omni (from the Latin omnis = all)? G-d is not limited in anything, as we humans are.

Salaam

 

[wil]

"but what if it were true?"

Couldn't the same be said for Hinduism, or Islam or whatever....the what if it were true argument is so terribly weak, grasping at the last straw in my mind.

I think this is even an insulting question, not to Christians but to God.

So if that is what you think why would you insult? Or if your answer is to explore, to contemplate, don't you think that is exactly what everyone else that asked is as well, therefor also not an insult?

It seems to me that one cannot insult G!d, in order to be insulted the insultee would need to accept it, or take afront in some way....I don't see G!d worrying about any such question.

As discussed if one has an omnipotent view of G!d, G!d could. If one has an omnipresent view of G!d, G!d's presence is in all of us. But the real debate in our world the one that separates the religions is not if G!d could but if G!d did.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

...the what if it were true argument is so terribly weak, grasping at the last straw in my mind.

I don't think we can classify C.S. Lewis, or the Inklings, as intellectual lightweights. Maybe the argument goes deeper than you appreciate?

It seems to me that one cannot insult G!d, in order to be insulted the insultee would need to accept it, or take afront in some way....I don't see G!d worrying about any such question.

Do you believe in a deist idea then, in the deus absconditus? If such is the case, it does rather make a mockery of salvation, justice and mercy, love thy neighbour ... in fact it knocks the whole Abrahamic shtick into a cocked-hat.

G!d's presence is in all of us.

This strikes me as a much weaker argument, for example.

If God is in us, and we went wrong, not a very clever God, is He?

If God is in me, why am I not omniscient & omnipotent?
Either God is not omniscient nor omnipotent,
God is omniscient and omnipotent, but subject to me.

If God is in me,
How can we make mistakes? That must mean God can make mistakes.

Arguments like that.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —


I don't think we can classify C.S. Lewis, or the Inklings, as intellectual lightweights. Maybe the argument goes deeper than you appreciate?

If God is in us, and we went wrong, not a very clever God, is He?

If God is in me, why am I not omniscient & omnipotent?
Either God is not omniscient nor omnipotent,
God is omniscient and omnipotent, but subject to me.

If God is in me,
How can we make mistakes? That must mean God can make mistakes.

Arguments like that.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

I agree they are no intellectual lightweights, that is why it baffles me. Of all the discussions they are to be swayed by "what if it were true" Please tell me why the glories and penalties listed in the Koran or the Vedas after all the intellectual discussion was finished folks would role over and convert because someone stood up and said "What if it were true".... I think it lame, you think it deep...enlighten me as to why it can't be used to prove anything...which means it proves nothing...

So you don't believe G!d's presence to be within you? Don't go for omnipresence? Free will says we can ignore it....many do. It doesn't diminish G!d in my eyes...it may in others...back to free will again.

Do you believe in a deist idea then, in the deus absconditus? If such is the case, it does rather make a mockery of salvation, justice and mercy, love thy neighbour ... in fact it knocks the whole Abrahamic shtick into a cocked-hat.

afraid I'm lost with the latin, and don't understand the colloquialisms.... I believe in G!d, just not one that is petty, jealous, vengeful...I believe those to be human emotions attributed to G!D because some can't imagine the breadth and scope of all that is....

 

[Gatekeeper]

It is my view that the fullness of God was in Christ bodily, but to me that doesn't suggest that he was God himself. For example, Christ experienced the human struggle fully, and was perfectly capable of falling short of perfection. That was his human nature, yet he also had a divine nature which he embraced fully. It was God in him that enabled him to live a perfect life. He was 'conceived' by the Holy spirit, whereas we can only 'recieve' it in measure. This is why we still make mistakes, and christ did not. He had the fullness of deity 'within' him.

The Spirit of God is in us, or at least available to us all. It is up to us to receive, embrace, follow.


James

 

[Snoopy]

If one has an omnipresent view of G!d, G!d's presence is in all of us.

Indeed. The question supposes a separation between God and man. Should the two be considered in this dualistic manner? Is God “separate” from man and hence the universe? Or is God omnipresent? If God is omnipresent then is not God already in man and man already in God? Only when we personalise God into a separate entity are we able to ask a question such as "Could God become man?"


s.

 

[earl]

Amen brother Snoop. earl

 

[paul]

It seems to me that one cannot insult G!d, in order to be insulted the insultee would need to accept it, or take afront in some way....I don't see G!d worrying about any such question.

As discussed if one has an omnipotent view of G!d, G!d could. If one has an omnipresent view of G!d, G!d's presence is in all of us. But the real debate in our world the one that separates the religions is not if G!d could but if G!d did.

I don't think asking such a question insults God directly.
I tried to explain what I said in my whole post.
Sorry I didn't do it very good.

I think it insults God as God, if you know what I mean.
Asking this question could God, in that I think it insults God as God, as if we say God can't.
I find it takes from Him being God, and we say He can't.

I've not put forward if God did, I purposely put forward "could God become man?"

It's not a question I'm asking, but to just put into peoples minds if possible.

As I also mentioned in my first post that I have heared some say God could not become man, and I recall said something like, how could God be man and be God in Heaven or ruling the world.

For me it's of course God could, for how can we say it's not possible with God.

I suppose I'm just addressing an argument I've heard of saying God couldn't.

To say you don't beleive He did is one thing, but to say it's not possible for Him to do so, that I find an insult to God as God.

 

[paul]

Indeed. The question supposes a separation between God and man. Should the two be considered in this dualistic manner? Is God “separate” from man and hence the universe? Or is God omnipresent? If God is omnipresent then is not God already in man and man already in God? Only when we personalise God into a separate entity are we able to ask a question such as "Could God become man?"
s.

I don't think man is God, I don't know that any religion does does it?

I think man in God, and God in man, is when we abide in His love.

But to say I or you are God, I find a great error.

The question is could God become man, not just us willingly submitting to His love, but God Himself be born as a human and live in this world as such.

I suppose I put forward, could God become man, as traditional Christianity teaches?
Some have said, that's impossible.
But such a response I find dismisses God as being God.

 

[Abdullah]

God never does anything beneath His majesty, thus it is impossible [in the sense for God to become 'inferior' by doing something beneath His grandeur and majesty] for God to become a man.

God ALLWAYS remains above anything man could ever imagine, thus God can never even remotely become a man or anything that man could ever concieve of. God allways remains above whatever man associates with Him [of his thinking]; even Gods attributes, such as Him being, the All-Mercifull, The Hearing, The seeing, etc, have no modality to them.

We beleive in Gods attributes, but associate not even any kind of modality [i.e, they are nothing like we can ever imagine] to them.

A verry quintessential creedal statement in Islam is "AllahuAkbar", which means, "God is greater [than whatever man could think of]".

Peace.

 

[dattaswami1]

I think this is even an insulting question, not to Christians but to God.

God is after all God, if it was His will to become even one of us, then surely as God it is possible.
And if we say not, then isn't us who would limit God as being God, and limit Him to mans limit, and maybe mans mind.

I have heared some say God could not become man, for who would rule the world.
As if God has to be in one place at one time, as a human's limits.

But if we pray to God, many of us in different countries, and surely there must be many of us praying at even the exact same time, does God only hear one single person.
Is God only in one single part of the world at a time, only with one person at a time.

I beleive one God, could be ruler of the world, and come to us as one of us if He pleased.
I beleive it would not be an impossibilty for God, to both be a man, and God.
Being both the man on earth, and God in Heaven at the exact same time, I don't think that an impossibility for God

It may be a hard thing to comprehend, but if God wanted to become one of us, to be born of a virgin, to come into this world through a woman, to be born as all humans are in human form, to live among us, and to even prepared to die the most brutal death, as if even a criminal, spat on and humiliated as if even a blasphemer of God, a madman even.
Then could He not, if He so wished to do so?

An ignorant person neglects Mahatma Gandhi seeing his cheap cloth. He cannot estimate the real value of Gandhi. He will give lot of value to a cinema actor who is in a colorful dress. Similarly when the Lord comes in the human body, which follows all the rules of the nature, an ignorant person insults Him seeing the ordinary human body, since he does not recognize the value of the internal form. This is told in Gita (Avajaananti Mam Mudhaah). The Lord can make His body to be divine and above the rules of nature by His super power. But He does not do this because He does not like to violate the rules of nature, since He is the creator of those rules. One will not generally contradict His own rule and insult himself.

An ordinary soul in the form of Yogi or a demon frequently exhibits his body to be beyond the rules of the nature because he is not insulted since he is not the creator of the rules of the nature. By such petty miracle the ignorant person believes such Yogi or demon as the Lord. The Lord is the ruler of Yogis (Yogeeswara). Once a saint walked on the river but Shri Rama Krishna Parahamsa who is the human incarnation of the Lord came by a boat paying one rupee. The Saint proudly told Shri Paramahamasa that he obtained the power to walk on the water by Sadhana for the past thirty years.

The saint asked Paramahamsa whether He did such tedious Sadhana in His life. Paramahamsa told simply with a smile that the cost of his thirty-year-old Sadhana is one rupee!! And that He never did such cheap Sadhana. Arjuna prostrated to the feet of Lord Krishna before all the soldiers without egoism and jealousy. Krishna was a human being like Arjuna. Moreover Krishna is only the driver where as Arjuna is the owner of the chariot. Arjuna recognized the value of the internal form of Lord Krishna and therefore Krishna revealed His inner form as Viswa Roopa to Arjuna. Therefore those people who get rid of jealousy and egoism can only give the value to the human incarnation.

 

[Snoopy]

I suppose I put forward, could God become man, as traditional Christianity teaches?

Then perhaps you should have put your OP in the Christianity forum?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Amen brother Snoop. earl

Gassho, brother earl.

s.

 

[dattaswami1]

I think this is even an insulting question, not to Christians but to God.

God is after all God, if it was His will to become even one of us, then surely as God it is possible.
And if we say not, then isn't us who would limit God as being God, and limit Him to mans limit, and maybe mans mind.

I have heared some say God could not become man, for who would rule the world.
As if God has to be in one place at one time, as a human's limits.

But if we pray to God, many of us in different countries, and surely there must be many of us praying at even the exact same time, does God only hear one single person.
Is God only in one single part of the world at a time, only with one person at a time.

I beleive one God, could be ruler of the world, and come to us as one of us if He pleased.
I beleive it would not be an impossibilty for God, to both be a man, and God.
Being both the man on earth, and God in Heaven at the exact same time, I don't think that an impossibility for God

It may be a hard thing to comprehend, but if God wanted to become one of us, to be born of a virgin, to come into this world through a woman, to be born as all humans are in human form, to live among us, and to even prepared to die the most brutal death, as if even a criminal, spat on and humiliated as if even a blasphemer of God, a madman even.
Then could He not, if He so wished to do so?

God-in-Flesh:


Bible says that Jesus is the God in flesh, but Gita says for a Hindu,
That Krishna is the God in flesh, let us analyse both these views?
I am not touching Buddhism and Islam in this topic because Islam believes
That Mohammad is not God in flesh and He was only messenger of God.
Buddhism keeps silent on the God and no question of God in flesh for them.
If the Bible told that Krishna was not God in flesh or if Gita told that
Jesus was not God in flesh, then both Bible and Gita are valid.
When the scriptures does not mention like this in complete version
How can you interpret your own scripture in the other way?
More over all of you whether Christians or Hindus have to accept
The concept of one God, there is no other alternative way in this.
You say that your God created this entire world and Hindus say that
Their God created this same entire world, unfortunately my dear friends!
I do not find two worlds and I find only one world! Now tell me

Whether this single entire world is created by Christian God or Hindu God?
One of you or both should be wrong and in that case who is wrong?
Either you should have two separate worlds or you should have single God.
If both the scriptures are wrong and both Gods did not create this Universe
Then the vote goes to Science, which says that the world exists by itself.
They say that no body created this world and it is self-existent.
Since both are sacred scriptures, let us solve this problem by analysis.
If you are rigid of your own scripture, I am not touching you at all.
If one is rigid where is the place for logical analysis and judgement?
In the court if one party says that what ever it says is the only truth
What is the necessity of the court, advocates, arguments and judgement?
If you leave rigidity and become flexible to accept the truth
After analysis only, you are most welcome to my Universal Spirituality.

Even in the small worldly matters, we apply open mind and analysis,
I wonder why you are not applying the same open mind and analysis
In such most important spiritual knowledge which decides everything.
The word Jesus stands for Human Incarnation and similarly the word Krishna.
In scriptures, we have to take the internal meanings and not simple external
Meanings for the sacred words, each word is ocean of divine knowledge.
Bible says that the lamb will come in red robe, here what is the meaning
For the word lamb? Is it simple animal with four legs and one tail.
Does this mean that Jesus will come again as animal? Here you say
That the word lamb stands for the Lord who is pure and innocent
Like the lamb, at one place you take the inner meaning and at other place
You take the external meaning! Therefore, the word Jesus means God in flesh,
Which means that the Lord comes in human form with blood and flesh.

This is a great concept, which Jesus tried to establish to the devotees.
Till then the Islam believed only in the formless God called Allah.
Islam does not treat Mohammad as God in flesh even today.
Jesus told that He and His father are one and the same, what does this mean?
Here the word father does not mean Joseph, the husband of His mother Mary.
If you take the meaning of the word of father in the external sense only
It is impossible because two human beings cannot be one and the same.
That Creator is indicated by the word father and human incarnation by the word Jesus
Both are one and the same since God pervaded all over the human incarnation.
If you take the meaning of the word Jesus as a particular human body only,
Then the meaning of the word father should also mean another particular human body.
In that case both the human bodies cannot be one and the same because
We are seeing the father and the son represented by two separate human bodies.
Similarly Jesus told that one could reach His father only through Him.

This again should mean that nobody could see or meet Joseph without Jesus.
But it is not so because several people have seen Joseph even before Jesus was born.
You are taking the inner meaning for the word father and say that father means God.
But for the word Jesus you are taking a particular human body only.
This is not justified and even a child will contradict this different approach.
When it is said that Jesus will baptise by fire, does it mean Jesus will sprinkle fire?
In such case the baptized person will be burnt with fire, therefore, the word fire
Means Knowledge as said in Gita “Jnanaagnih”, moreover if you stick the word
Jesus to a particular human body only and if you say that Jesus exists even now,
Please show Me Jesus as the same human body to My eyes also, in the past
When Jesus was alive everyone could show Jesus as human body to anyone.
Whether a believer or a non-believer saw Jesus as human body in the past.

 

[paul]

And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins.
- The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 1:21

The name Jesus is from the Hebrew language, it gives the meaning even in this verse, it means to save or deliver, in the context "for He shall save His people from their sins."

I don't know much at all about Hinduism, but would very much like to learn.
I have a little too much to learn at the moment, and haven't yet been able to study Hinduism.

You talk of Krishna, as God in the flesh, and make the similarity to Jesus.

What do the Hindu scriptures say of him:
What does the word Krishna mean in it's original language?
Does he have a geneology, who was his mother and father?

The Bible itself says little about Mary, but there are ancient Christian writings which give an account of her parents, her birth and life.

Was Krishna just a vision to one man, or did he live amongst people?
What was his life?

Could you maybe give me a little brief detial from your scripture and maybe a little from tradition if needs be about Krishna?

Thanks.
Paul

 

[Thomas]

I agree they are no intellectual lightweights, that is why it baffles me ... I think it lame, you think it deep ...

Because I think the question highlights not so much whether a thing is true or not, as whether someone has pre-determined in their own minds whether a thing is true or not.

From the discussions we have had, I always appear to come down on believing Scripture to say what it means, and mean what it says ... you always appear to be looking for the caveat, the logical opt-out, a means of explaining-it-away, a reason not to believe?

So you don't believe G!d's presence to be within you?

I do, but the question is how?

I believe we have to consider what we mean by the term 'within' — I suggest this means a sense of God, in the same way we have a sense of right, of beauty, or goodness, what the philosophers call the transcendentals ... but that does not mean we possess those qualities, nor that we are, by nature, Divine ... rather I believe we are created in the 'image and likeness' (Genesis 1:26) of the Divine, but that does not mean the same as, in substance or essence.

We are neither substantially Divine, nor are we essentially Divine ... so the Presence may indeed be within, but it is no part of the self in the sense that so many use it so casually. Furthermore, it is not something at the self's disposal, but rather it is a calling on the self to dispose itself accordingly.

(Too often among Christians this idea of 'the divine within' becomes an excuse for what Pope Benedict referred to as the inherent auto eroticisme, or nihilism, of westernised Buddhist doctrine — it becomes a self-orientating dictum, rather than orienting the self to something other — it is timeless wisdom according to the cult of the ego.)

The Presence within, or rather the Presence that makes itself known to the individual, which is an interior operation (hence 'within') was always a gift, a grace, something given, something superadded to our nature, and which was lost, when we dis-graced ourselves, by seeking to become the light of our own existence, to order the Kosmos according to themselves. Thus we lost our primordial 'innocence', our primordial illumination or enlightenment, when the 'inward eye' became closed:
"And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons." Genesis 3:7

"That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not."
John 1:9-10

+++

'The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for: "The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator." ' (Gaudiam et Spes, 19.1)
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 27.

I believe we are created with a sense of the supernatural, an innate sense of the Transcendant, and ultimately the transcendance of Being ... this was implanted in man when he was created 'in the image and likeness' ...

Man does not need to know God to comprehend the supernatural, but the idea of a Personal God is something God reveals to man (man can theorise such an idea, but cannot argue for it, other than from the data of Revelation — a Personal God transcends the 'God of the Philosophers' who can only argue from ontology). The knowledge of a Personal God is not objective data, but rather a taste of beatitude, of living in the life of God, and this is the life of Grace, the Presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul, by which man's salvation is worked.

The idea of Salvation, upon which Christianity turns, rests upon the idea of grace, Grace signifies the activity of the Holy Spirit, to effect the redemption from sin through Christ and leads to the eternal destiny of the Beatific Vision of the Father.

This was why the Fathers hold that the Spirit reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Because I think the question highlights not so much whether a thing is true or not, as whether someone has pre-determined in their own minds whether a thing is true or not.

Namaste Thomas,

To refresh, the statement that is so deep is... What if it were true? My question in regards to it is doesn't that apply to the Koran, the Tanakh, as well as the Bible...isn't it just as forceful with any postulate? Therefor to me...it is weak, lame. I'd like you to tell me how if someone said the same to you about the Koran how you'd deny it there, yet accept it with the bible??

From the discussions we have had, I always appear to come down on believing Scripture to say what it means, and mean what it says ... you always appear to be looking for the caveat, the logical opt-out, a means of explaining-it-away, a reason not to believe?

I'm already a believer Thomas and not going anywhere. The difference is simple, we believe it means something different...nothing new here, hence all the variations, versions, interpretations and denominations....if we all believed the same thing we'd have consensus on it all!

 

[Thomas]

To refresh, the statement that is so deep is... What if it were true? My question in regards to it is doesn't that apply to the Koran, the Tanakh, as well as the Bible...isn't it just as forceful with any postulate?

Yes it is. The question then is can you accept all of them as true, or none, or some, and if so, why, and how? The same applies to Richard Dawkins ... Jacob Needleman ... G.I. Gurdjieff ... the Theosophical Society ... various Christian denominations ... spiritualist movements ... empirical rationalists ... athiests ... agnostics ... monists ... pantheists ... panentheists .... pagans ... somewhere one draws the line — the point is often we do not question where and why we draw it.

Therefor to me ... it is weak, lame. I'd like you to tell me how if someone said the same to you about the Koran how you'd deny it there, yet accept it with the bible??

Because I can argue the Bible against the Koran ...

I'm already a believer Thomas and not going anywhere.

Then you have perforce decided certain things, which exclude other things ... and all the question asks is, are your suppostitions for inclusion or rejection founded on your own opinion or the testimony to hand?

The difference is simple, we believe it means something different...nothing new here, hence all the variations, versions, interpretations and denominations...

Far from simple ... the question is why do we believe in something different? And from the perspective of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, the difference lies in the degree to which the believer is inclined to interpret Scripture according to his or her own presuppositions.

If we all believed the same thing we'd have consensus on it all!

And we would be One Church, One Body in Christ ... speed the day!
(Or is it more important that our voices are heard, rather than His?)

Thomas