Was Jesus A Gnostic? (ritual, Moses, Earth, mystic, beliefs)

[slabbey06]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Jesus was a man, born of woman, therefore He was not God. He was as close to God as I can comprehend and still not God.

Regards,
Scott

This is what the heart of our conversation comes down to. I believe He is a Man, but I also believe He is God. I believe He is fully both, God became a Man, dwelt among us, sacrificed Himself on our behalf because we are dead in our transgressions and sin, unable to save ourselves. The only one who can pay the penalty for our sin is someone who is sinless. And God is the only One who is without sin. So in His love He took on flesh and died for us and rose again, enabling us to be reconciled to Him through faith in His finished work.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
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 2:5-11

[doppelgänger]

" being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,"

That doesn't sound like he was "a man" to me . . . It should have said, "being made as a human and being found as a man . . . " right? What's with all these "likenesses" and "appearances"?

[Popeyesays]

Well, Paul says what he wants to say--doesn't make him right--in Phillipians or anywhere else. Paul never saw Jesus eat, or sweat in the sun or work wood with his hands, so Paul's vision of Christ is incomplete.

I cannot contain the oceans in a teacup, and the vessel of a man cannot contain the magnificence of God. If any small piece of God CAN be contained in a man then as soon as the vessel is full whatever was contained within ceases to be God.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

" being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,"

That doesn't sound like he was "a man" to me . . . It should have said, "being made as a human and being found as a man . . . " right? What's with all these "likenesses" and "appearances"?

It takes 'likenesses, and appearances" to the '200% being' to make sense. Man is man and God is NOT man. Man is a creation and God is not a creation.

Regards,
Scott

[slabbey06]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

" being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,"

That doesn't sound like he was "a man" to me . . . It should have said, "being made as a human and being found as a man . . . " right? What's with all these "likenesses" and "appearances"?

I'll look into it and let you know what I find.

[slabbey06]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Well, Paul says what he wants to say--doesn't make him right--in Phillipians or anywhere else. Paul never saw Jesus eat, or sweat in the sun or work wood with his hands, so Paul's vision of Christ is incomplete.

Regards,
Scott

Well, this brings up a whole different issue entirely. Is the Bible the Word of God or the opinion of men. If this i something you're interested in discussing, we could start a new thread.

[Popeyesays]

I have no difficulty with the bible being "The Word of God". However the commentaries (Epistles and revelations) are one thing and the Gospels are another.

Paul wrote to the best of his understanding and ability--but that is a HUUUUGE proviso. Paul's understanding and ability were limited. So, too, for qualities of the authors of the Gospels. The Gospels however have an apparent history as oral tradition and being transcribed as oral tradition--they are more a record than a commentary.

My rule of thumb is if Jesus says it, it is far closer to being the pure word of God than if Paul says it--or John, or Titus, etc..

The Bible as we know it cannot BE perfect, because we cannot trace the hands that wrote the documents.

The Qur'an has a better provenance and the writings of the Baha`i Faith have an even better provenance. We can recognize the hand of Baha`u'llah, or the various hands of His secretaries who transcribed His recitations.

Regards,

Scott

[A. Ben-Shema]

Originally Posted by slabbey06

Well, this brings up a whole different issue entirely. Is the Bible the Word of God or the opinion of men. If this i something you're interested in discussing, we could start a new thread.

Do you really understand the difference between:

1). "THE WORD ('Logos') of God", and

2). "the 'word'(s) of (about) God".

The first refers to the Divine / Spiritual / Mystic / Ineffable Reality of Truth - to God HIMSELF! NOT A BOOK!

The Bible is a mixture of Truth and falsehood authored, edited, copied, interpreted, and translated by so many, that it is certain that satan played his part.

Peace & Love