The Divinity of Christ

[Muffled]

I don't find these statements contradictory. Jesus is all the above because that's the will of the Father.

I believe I don't doubt that it is His will but that is not the rationale for all the statements being true. I believe they are true because they are logically true.

 

[Muffled]

There are even more descriptions in the apocrypha, which I imagine were left out of the official book because they weren't cohesive with the decided-upon idea of Christ's deity.

I believe they were left out because they were not scripturaly sound,

I believe you need to quote them if you think they are significant.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I believe they were left out because they were not scripturaly sound,

Something being scripturally sound is entirely dependent upon what was first assumed to be scripture in the first place, right? If you determine that Christ was, in fact, not deitic, then what is and what is not scripturally sound becomes totally different, doesn't it?

I believe you need to quote them if you think they are significant.

Pick a topic

 

[MJFlores]

I do believe Him but I do not believe what a silly cartoon is saying.

I prefer to believe what God says.

I bet I got a lot closer to the devil than they ever did but Jesus kept me from falling for the devil's lies. I believe proximity does not determine outcome.

My Jesus said this:

John 8:40-45 New International Version (NIV)

As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Maybe you do not believe in my Jesus because your Jesus and my Jesus are not the same. My Jesus was a man who came from God, heard the truth from God, a man sent by God, died on the cross, raised by God from the dead and taken up to heaven sometime 30-36 AD. But your Jesus was just thought up in Nicaea in 325 AD by 300 dead men and an emperor in a place near where Satan has his throne and where Satan lives.

2 Corinthians 11:4 New International Version (NIV)

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Correct!

I take the words literally but I don't deny words can have a more profound spiritual meaning.

I remember an old adage towards exegesis that I was taught once:

"If the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense."

There is nowhere in the bible that tells us to interpret scripture in that manner, at least not that I'm aware of. Of course you are welcome to find verses that support your argument.

This takes us back to the original problem that the doctrine that Jesus is physically God incarnate is a man made doctrine using man made ideas and rules to support it.

This doesn't deny there can be other, deeper, more profound meanings to scripture, but the PRIMARY and/or FOCAL meaning should be the common, plain, literal sense one.

So while I recognise the authority and authenticity of biblical scripture, I do not recognise the authority of various church councils to create doctrine that has the same authority as scripture. It is simply man overstepping the bounds of propriety that God has given us.

As stated previously:

If the Son of God means you are less than God then Son of Man means you’re less than man.
That, IMO, is a logical, consistent and predictable exegesis of scripture. If a literal interpretation of scripture makes sense, then we take it, and a literal approach to Son of God and Son of Man works fine here.

Once we determine the literal approach "makes sense" we can then seek deeper meanings of the literal scripture. If a literal approach does not make sense, then we seek deeper meaning, based on grammar, word usage and surrounding scripture, for example "the four corners of the earth" (Rev 7:1).

The problem I see with ignoring a literal order of interpretation is that it allows the interpreter to arrive at "any sense" they want. With this approach, "The bible doesn't mean what it says nor does it say what it means. It means whatever [...] says it means."

Logic is in the eye of the beholder, and I say that because I believe you are sincere in your beliefs and what you say makes sense to you.

The solution is simple. We are all created in the image of God. (John 10:34)

However Jesus reflects the light God so perfectly and powerfully that He appears more than a man, and appears to be God like. He like a mirror that perfectly reflects the attributes of God.

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Look, we've already seen churches who believe the pre-incarnate Jesus was simply an idea in the mind of God. Others believe he was an apparition. There are others, right now on this forum, who believe all the good parts of the New Testament are about their particular church while all the bad parts are about yours. It's easy to insert doctrinal bias when we first dismiss literal in favor of allegorical, tropological, typological, or anagogical approaches to scripture.

That way, if the bible doesn't say what it should have said, it certainly says so now.

Christianity does not appear to be in great shape generally. The problem has been the impossibility of going against the Nicene creed. Consider Galileo and the hard time he had with the idea that the earth is not the centre of the universe. That was less that 400 years ago and he had science on his side. Luther had a hard time challenging conventions as well and look at the massive bloodshed that resulted.

The overwhelming problem with Jesus being physically God incarnate is the irrationality of fitting the God of the entire universe into one man. Its simply illogical and no reasonable man should feel obliged to accept this.

Scripture confirm this problem:

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

If we apply your literal exegesis rule to these scripture then Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

I think "Son of...", as used in scripture, has a primary, literal, logical and consistent meaning that doesn't require symbolic interpretation. I'm not saying "Son of..." can't have symbolic meaning, but the primary meaning is literal.

A further problem is that you are playing with the English language. Jesus spoke Aramaic although He may have also spoken to His disciples in Greek. The first gospels were presumably written in Greek though the earliest fragments we have are two hundred years after He was crucified. The Greek was later translated into Latin and then later to English. Your arguments apply to the English language but the meaning is most likely altered in translation especially with the more symbolic verses where interpreters interpret according to their human understanding.

 

[MJFlores]

THE LORD JESUS Christ is not God because the Bible explicitly teaches that the Father alone is the true God and the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the One True God.

THE FATHER IS THE ONE TRUE GOD

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself clearly said that the Father is the only true God:

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You…

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:1, 3, NKJV)


Even Apostle Paul also explicity said that the Father alone is the true God:


“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”(I Corinthians 8:6, NKJV)



GOD IS THE FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST


The apostles explicitly wrote that the true God is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ:


“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.” (II Corinthians 1:3 NKJV)


“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” Ephesians 1:3 NKJV


“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:2 NKJV)


“To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” (Colossians 1:2-3 NKJV)


“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (I Peter 1:3 NKJV)


This is what the apostles taught and wrote because this is what they heard from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself:


“Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'” (John 20:17 NKJV)

That is what Jesus said:
My Father and your Father
My God and your God

Therefore:
Jesus Christ has a God
God is only the Father
There is only ONE God
God has no God besides him
Jesus is not God

Isaiah 43:10 New International Version (NIV)

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

 

[Muffled]

My Jesus said this:

John 8:40-45 New International Version (NIV)

As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Maybe you do not believe in my Jesus because your Jesus and my Jesus are not the same. My Jesus was a man who came from God, heard the truth from God, a man sent by God, died on the cross, raised by God from the dead and taken up to heaven sometime 30-36 AD. But your Jesus was just thought up in Nicaea in 325 AD by 300 dead men and an emperor in a place near where Satan has his throne and where Satan lives.

View attachment 17221

2 Corinthians 11:4 New International Version (NIV)

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

View attachment 17220

I believe you are correct. Your Jesus is a fantasy and mine is real.

I believe that is my Jesus also. On this we agree.

I believe your concept of my Jesus is pure fantasy. My Jesus is God in the flesh as the Bible says He is.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe that is not an answer but a simple imagination.

That's not an argument and doesn't add anything to the discussion, other than to say we have different beliefs and you declaring yours to be real, and mine to be imaginary.

I believe there is no evidence that says they are not literal.

So show me the evidence that says Jesus is physically "Son of God?" You won't be able to find any of course because it is an unprovable belief.

As previously stated I believe Jesus is the "Son of God" but it can not possibly be physical like we have children, as we are applying human concepts to God.

If the absence of a human father was a sign of greatness, then Adam must be even greater, as Adam had neither a father or mother. This of course makes no sense. A much more plausible explanation is that the greatness of Jesus is because He reflects the Divine perfections or qualities to an extraordinary degree.

I believe you are in error because He is more than God but you are correct that having God within makes Him greater than any man.

How can Jesus be "more than God?" Are you not satisfied to have Him as God in the flesh? Now He needs to be even greater!

I believe it is not like that at all.

So what are the arguments one way or the other?

I believe this is the null hypothesis. There is no reason to believe He should be direct and particularly when there were those who sought to kill Him even when He was indirect. Evidently they understood well enough.

Al least you are considering the historic circumstances and how that might have constrained Jesus. However these circumstances did not prevent Him from claiming to be the "Son of God." (John 3:16)

I believe there are none only people who try to squeeze the scriptures into their own way of thinking.

It works both ways though. I would argue that the problem arose in the first place because the early Christians enshrined their misunderstanding of the divinity of Christ into Doctrine. There is good historical evidence to support that view that is universally accepted (How the Nicene creed came about and the associated Arian controversy.) The paucity of your arguments only weakens your position and strengthens mine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't find these statements contradictory. Jesus is all the above because that's the will of the Father.

Explain it to me please.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There are even more descriptions in the apocrypha, which I imagine were left out of the official book because they weren't cohesive with the decided-upon idea of Christ's deity.

Would you elaborate please? I'm aware of the Gospel of Thomas. What other books and are there specific references you had it mind?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well Mr @adrian009 mentioned the titles of Jesus Christ in the Bible - Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus is the Son of Man but no where in the Bible could we read Jesus is God - it was a presumption and a doctrine invented by dead people in 325 A.D. in Nicaea (which is now İznik Turkey)

People have missed the preposition OF
of Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

We are agreed that Jesus is not physically God incarnate and share the same understanding as how this belief came about through various church councils in the fourth century and beyond, particularly the two in Nicea.

 

[MJFlores]

I believe you are correct. Your Jesus is a fantasy and mine is real.

I believe that is my Jesus also. On this we agree.

I believe your concept of my Jesus is pure fantasy. My Jesus is God in the flesh as the Bible says He is.

The apostles said this in:

You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed. 2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT

A different Jesus is a Jesus which the apostles did not preach. From a different kind of spirit of faith and a different kind of gospel that the apostles did not even knew about.

My Jesus is different from your Jesus.
My Jesus is no demigod or
My Jesus is no 1/3 god or
My Jesus is not the Father or
My Jesus is not the HS or
My Jesus is not 50% man and 50% god or
My Jesus is not truly man and truly god or
My Jesus is not God

Who is my Jesus? As taught by his apostles

For, There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5

Let me clearly state to all of you and to all the people of Israel that he was healed by the powerful name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the man you crucified but whom God raised from the dead. Acts 4:10

But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. Romans 5:15

For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ. Romans 5:17

But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:3

1 Corinthians 4:6 New King James Version (NKJV)

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

 

[Kenny]

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ. For example:

- Jesus is God

- Jesus is the 'Son of God'

- Jesus is the 'son of man'.

What is the best way of understanding the spiritual reality of Christ?

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

Maybe we are approaching this wrong...

My name is Dad, Ken, Son, Brother Friend.

What if Jesus is God but when birthed into a human casing received the title Son of God and yet representing 100% man became the son of man?

In that case here is some scripture to get us started:

Is Jesus God incarnate?

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

Perhaps it would be better to think of Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

So in this manner Moses also speaks as God

Deuteronomy 29:2-6

So Moses is to the Jews what Jesus has become to the Christians. Although the language is different Moses was the salvation for the Hebrew people, both physically and spiritually.

If my first point is correct, then one could look at these scriptures differently.

I think it is a possibility because there are other scriptures:

Matt 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 14:
7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

 

[MJFlores]

I believe you are correct. Your Jesus is a fantasy and mine is real.

I believe that is my Jesus also. On this we agree.

I believe your concept of my Jesus is pure fantasy. My Jesus is God in the flesh as the Bible says He is.

Am I correct in saying your Jesus was done in Nicaea?

Nicene Christianity refers to Christian doctrinal traditions that adhere to the Nicene Creed, which was originally formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and finished at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381.
Nicene Christianity - Wikipedia

My Jesus is in the Bible not something taught in 325 A.D. but much earlier than that.

John 8:40-45 New International Version (NIV)

As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

 

[MJFlores]

We are agreed that Jesus is not physically God incarnate and share the same understanding as how this belief came about through various church councils in the fourth century and beyond, particularly the two in Nicea.

The belief that Jesus is God is because of apostasy.

The apostasy of the first century Church of Christ is indeed prophesied by the Bible

THE ISSUE IF there was an apostasy took place in the first century Church of Church is very vital especially for the Roman Catholic Church because if there was, the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church founded by Christ, but the apostatized church because the Catholic Church claims that they succeeded the first century Church of Christ. This is the reason why the Catholic Church is using every possible way to cover the biblical and historical facts of the apostasy that took place in the first century Church of Christ.

WHAT “APOSTASY” IS

The dictionary defines “apostasy” as “the renunciation of a religious or political belief or allegiance” (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary). Thus, Apostasy is a defection, a falling away from what one believed in, as apostasy from one’s religion, creed, or politics. Hence, one becomes an "apostate" as soon as he departs from his former belief, whatever it was. What undergoes change is not the person nor his nature but his beliefs.

The Bible also has a definition for “apostasy.” Let us read what is written I Timothy 4:1:


“Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” (New Living Translation)


According to Apostle Paul, “some WILL TURN AWAY FROM THE TRUE FAITH; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” These words (“turning away from the true faith”) is synonymous with the word “apostasy”:


“But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall APOSTATISE from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons.” (Darby Bible)


Aside from “turning away from the true faith,” the Bible also used the following words which are also synonymous with the word “apostasy”:


“depart from faith” (KJV)

“abandon the faith” (NIV)

“fall away from the faith” (NASB)

“desert the Christian faith” (God’s Word)

“turned away from the faith” (Bible basic English)

“renounce the faith” (NRSV)


For Apostle Paul, apostasy is not only turning away from the true faith, but also following deceptive spirits and teachings that came from demons.” The “true faith” is what the Lord Jesus Christ and the His apostles taught. Where could we find the truth taught by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles? Which can teach us the truth? This is what apostle Paul said in II Toimothy 3:16-17:


“And you remember that ever since you were a child, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.” (TEV)


Not all the things done by Christ and the Apostles were written (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). In fact there were some things that God did not want to be written (cf. Dan. 12:4; Rev. 10:4). The Apostles wrote down what they witnessed (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1-4). All such writings were inspired by God, should be used for doctrine, correction, instruction, and they make man perfect (cf. II Tim. 3:16-17). What were written are enough and nothing should be added to them nor subtracted from them (cf. Rev. 22:18-19) for what are written were written so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing we might have eternal life through His name (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). Apostle Paul adds that we must not go beyond what is written:


“Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.” (I Corinthians 4:6 NIV)


Thus, departing from the true faith is departing from what the Bible teaches through going beyond what is written. Moreover, apostasy is also changing the Gospel of Christ or the doctrine writen in the Bible:


“I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ, and are accepting another gospel. Actually, there is no "other gospel," but I say this because there are some people who are upsetting you and trying to change the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell! Galacia 1:6-8 TEV

Hence, an apostate is (1) those that followed the doctrines came from the demon or erroneous doctrines; (2) went beyond what is written (taught doctrines not in the Bible, upheld unbiblical doctrines); and (3) changed the doctrines written in the Bible (changed the Gospel or the teachings of Christ and the apostles). Apostle Paul said, “if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell!.”

 

[Dawnofhope]

The belief that Jesus is God is because of apostasy.

The biggest tests that Christians will face is from other Christians no doubt.

Jesus anticipated that there would be false teachings amidst the true teachings.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13:24-30

It is harvest time so I have been instructed to gather and wheat, and burn the tares. The doctrine that Jesus is physically God incarnate belongs in the fire.

 

[MJFlores]

The biggest tests that Christians will face is from other Christians no doubt.

Jesus anticipated that there would be false teachings amidst the true teachings.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13:24-30

It is harvest time so I have been instructed to gather and wheat, and burn the tares. The doctrine that Jesus is physically God incarnate belongs in the fire.

And to continue to the 40th verse:

Matthew 13:40-43 New International Version (NIV)

“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

The weeds are people

 

[syo]

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ. For example:

- Jesus is God

according to christian orthodox Jesus is the Son. the Son is one aspect of God. there are three aspects, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, they are three aspects of God. these aspects have their own unique purpose under one will.

- Jesus is the 'Son of God'

the Son of God meaning one of the three aspects of God.

- Jesus is the 'son of man'.

In order for God to save humans, one aspect the Son became also perfect human with the birth from a human, Mairy, so He became son of man.

What is the best way of understanding the spiritual reality of Christ?

for me the best way is the Trinity and the coming of Christ in this world.



I want to add, the Father is the creator of the world, the Son is the reveal of God on the world, and the Holy Spirit animates the world.

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

 

[Desert Snake]

Something being scripturally sound is entirely dependent upon what was first assumed to be scripture in the first place, right? If you determine that Christ was, in fact, not deitic, then what is and what is not scripturally sound becomes totally different, doesn't it?


Pick a topic

We always rely on accepted canon/texts, the Bible is no different. There are differences between churches though. Luther was very strict and opinionated about this, for example.

 

[Oeste]

Correct!

I take the words literally but I don't deny words can have a more profound spiritual meaning.

I remember an old adage towards exegesis that I was taught once:

"If the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense."

There is nowhere in the bible that tells us to interpret scripture in that manner, at least not that I'm aware of. Of course you are welcome to find verses that support your argument.

Why?

You were able to read what I wrote. You were able to understand it. It made plain sense to you even if you disagreed. You didn’t need to think about its “deeper meaning” because you understood it at face value which is the natural way we interpret language. It’s only after a text makes no literal sense do we look for more profound meaning, not before.


To make this clear here is a nursery rhyme:

"Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary went the lamb was sure to go."​

Little Johnny is about to read this rhyme in class, but a parent vehemently protests. She doesn’t think poems about drugs are appropriate for young children.

As she explains:

"Mary had a little lamb. Its fleece was white as snow."​

Mary is someone apparently wise to the ways of the world. The "lamb" (gullible person) represents the person or mark, unaware of Mary's intentions. Mary is preparing this lamb for a "fleece" which is "white as snow".

In other words, Mary is preparing to fleece (swindle) her "lamb" (mark) of the snow (heroin or cocaine) he has in his possession.

We'll continue with her "interpretation":

"And everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go."​

Now we learn the lamb is hot on Mary's trail, crashing her old haunts, trying to get his heroin back, because Mary is a crook and the lamb is simply a wanna be dealer.

The parent backs her interpretation with a dictionary showing alternate definitions for “lamb”, “fleece” and “snow” and demands the rhyme not be read in class because it promotes the use of illicit drugs. Instead she pulls out “Little Bo Peep”, a story of a Shepherdess who lost her sheep. Unfortunately a dispute develops as to whether “sheep” refers to wayward Christians or the children of Israel.

You say the rhyme is harmless and want Little Johnny to read it in class but someone shrewdly points out that nowhere in the nursery book does it tell us we have to interpret the rhyme at face value, in the same manner you pointed out (in red) above.

We take the plain, face value of the text first. Any other meaning to the text becomes secondary. If the plain face value of the text makes no sense then we are free to apply another sense to it, not before. Otherwise even my response to you now will not say what it means and will not mean what it says.

The approach allows interpreters to insert meaning into the text (eisegesis) rather than extract meaning from the text (exegesis).

​