'Fully God and fully man'....or, 'God & man'? Is there a difference?

[Desert Snake]

Some churches tend to call Jesus fully God and fully man. Is there a difference between this description, and, for instance, God & man?


Does this change His person?

Is fully God and fully man, clear, or confusing?


Thanks

 

[74x12]

Some churches tend to call Jesus fully God and fully man. Is there a difference between this description, and, for instance, God & man?


Does this change His person?

Is fully God and fully man, clear, or confusing?


Thanks

Either works. One is more descriptive than the other.

 

[sun rise]

Is fully God and fully man, clear, or confusing?

For me, fully God and fully man is the same thing as saying Avatar is in the East. It's not confusing to me but, of course, I have no way of understanding the reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Alan Watts, in his book:
Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion*, writes:

"The dogma of the Incarnation insists that in Christ, God became man, not a man. That is to say, in Christ there are two natures, but only one person. The person is divine--God the Son--but it is in hypostatic union with a complete human nature, though not with a human person. Thus the humanity of Christ is representative
of all humanity, and by this means the gifts of the Incarnation are bestowed upon the whole race and not upon the historic Jesus alone."**

*Behold the Spirit, page 131

**Compare to Buddhist teachings, which say that all sentient beings have Buddha nature.

 

[wizanda]

Is there a difference between this description, and, for instance, God & man?

There is a huge difference it is called idolatry...

Even Paul says we have One God and One Lord, which is in keeping with Israelite beliefs; that there is One God Most High, the Source of Reality, and then there is a council of Elohim with YHVH/Yeshua as it's leader.

Because Judaism had forgotten the God Most High, the writers of the fake Gospel of John (Sanhedrin) assumed Yeshua was claiming to be their God (YHVH) and Man (Yeshua).

Whereas the scriptures says that YHVH was to become Yeshua (Exodus 15:2-3, Psalms 118:14-21, Isaiah 12:2), and YHVH/Yeshua Elohim is an Arch Angel.

Is fully God and fully man, clear, or confusing?

It is naive; God is beyond form, and is the Source of all reality...

It is understandable that people have got confused with Arch Angels being gods; yet it is less complicated to fix, than try to make up all these weird ideologies that have come from the confusion.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

God is beyond form, and is the Source of all reality...

So out of The Formless that is God, came all form.

 

[Desert Snake]

Whereas the scriptures says that YHVH was to become Yeshua (Exodus 15:2-3, Psalms 118:14-21, Isaiah 12:2), and YHVH/Yeshua Elohim is an Arch Angel.

It is naive; God is beyond form, and is the Source of all reality...

Except that we have a singular godhood, with more than one godform. You have to separate the godhood, in order to uphold your belief. There is no evidence for that either in traditional belief, or Scripture. That is why Jesus says that He is one with the Father. He is informing us that there isn't the separation that you seem to be implying.

If, you are not claiming a separation, then there is no difference between these aspects or beings, in the Godhood, and therefore the action of Yesu is the same as the action of the Father.

 

[wizanda]

So out of The Formless that is God, came all form.

Lovely sentence... Only that which is selfless, can allow all selves to dwell within it.

You have to separate the godhood, in order to uphold your belief.

2 Samuel 22:14 & Psalms 18:13 Yahweh thundered from heaven 'and' The Most High uttered his voice. + Psalms 21:7 + Psalms 50:14 + Psalms 78:35 + Psalms 92:1

These all show that David had one God Most High (El Elyon), 'and' One Lord (YHVH Elohim)...

In Isaiah 46:9, it interrelates that El is not like the Elohim, and points back to the days of old, where in Deuteronomy 32:7-9 El Elyon separated the nations among the Elohim, and gave YHVH Israel.

There is no evidence for that either in traditional belief

As Revelation relates we've all been lied to, as some people don't understand El is not Elohim, and have tried to make it fit for the whole world.

That is why Jesus says that He is one with Father.

John is made up, he never said that.

He is informing us that there isn't the separation that you seem to be implying.

There isn't separation, as when we recognize we're all code (the Word) inside the Matrix that the CPU manifests, both dualism and monism become one.

We're all Elohim (Psalms 82:6), like we're all fallen angels, that have the power to become divine again; if we recognize how we've fallen by thinking our Self to be the CPU, which is Selfless, and beyond form.

If, you are not claiming a separation

Separating it is naive, everything comes from the CPU (God the Father).

therefore the action of Yesu is the same as the action of the Father.

The CPU processes everything; yet we have free will inside the Matrix, which is why Yeshua prayed, "let your will be done" and not his own (Luke 22:42).

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Lovely sentence... Only that which is selfless, can allow all selves to dwell within it.

The Hindus take it even further: 'all selves' are, in reality, The One Supreme Self, playing itself as all selves. In this view, the oneness of divine union is preserved. You and I are none other than the divine nature itself, pretending that we're not. It's called 'Hide and Seek', but on a higher level.

 

[wizanda]

The Hindus take it even further: 'all selves' are, in reality, The One Supreme Self, playing itself as all selves.

This is where Buddha tried to fix that issue, by using the universal mind instead, which is selfless; and only when we recognize our selfless nature (Anatta), can we then become one with the Source.

Hindu texts actually say only those who practise devotion have the divine within them, that Brahman only resides in those that choose to be Holy.

BG 9.4: This entire cosmic manifestation is pervaded by me in my unmanifest form. All living beings dwell in me, but I do not dwell in them.
BG 9.29: I am equally disposed to all living beings; I am neither inimical nor partial to anyone. But the devotees who worship me with love reside in me and I reside in them.

We have free will, and demonic qualities have us sent back here for having self orientated issues like pride, arrogance, desires, etc.

In this view, the oneness of divine union is preserved.

This is why we've questioned the concept of Zero-ness (0neness), which is to recognize that selflessness is the ultimate expression, and then we become a welcome asset, rather than putting our self onto others.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

This is where Buddha tried to fix that issue, by using the universal mind instead, which is selfless; and only when we recognize our selfless nature (Anatta), can we then become one with the Source.

Hindu texts actually say only those who practise devotion have the divine within them, that Brahman only resides in those that choose to be Holy.

BG 9.4: This entire cosmic manifestation is pervaded by me in my unmanifest form. All living beings dwell in me, but I do not dwell in them.
BG 9.29: I am equally disposed to all living beings; I am neither inimical nor partial to anyone. But the devotees who worship me with love reside in me and I reside in them.

We have free will, and demonic qualities have us sent back here for having self orientated issues like pride, arrogance, desires, etc.

This is why we've questioned the concept of Zero-ness (0neness), which is to recognize that selflessness is the ultimate expression, and then we become a welcome asset, rather than putting our self onto others.

In my opinion.

Sounds like you see a separation between man and God. If so, where does this separation occur?

 

[wizanda]

Sounds like you see a separation between man and God. If so, where does this separation occur?

Separation happens by multiple levels of quantum physics.dimensions...

We're somewhere in the middle; yet there are levels of dimension above us, like anti-matter, infinity, chaos, the Matrix, Unconditional Love, Wisdom.

In someways it is all One, when we recognize it is all code.

We can fall lower than here, by being more full of our self; the lowest dimension in my NDE was full of self orientated beings, whereas Heaven/Nirvana/0neness was all selfless.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Separation happens by multiple levels of quantum physics.dimensions...

We're somewhere in the middle; yet there are levels of dimension above us, like anti-matter, infinity, chaos, the Matrix, Unconditional Love, Wisdom.

In someways it is all One, when we recognize it is all code.

We can fall lower than here, by being more full of our self; the lowest dimension in my NDE was full of self orientated beings, whereas Heaven/Nirvana/0neness was all selfless.

In my opinion.

But isn't the self an illusion? So how can one be separated from the Source by self, when it is illusory?

 

[wizanda]

But isn't the self an illusion?

The self is our personal identification with our own history...

Sort of like a historical timeline is a capital 'I', that is our self.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

The self is our personal identification with our own history...

Sort of like a historical timeline is a capital 'I', that is our self.

In my opinion.

Yes, I understand it to be Identification, the Third Level of Consciousness. But even so, could it be that the divine nature is asleep in each of us while we are in the state of Identifcation, playing out the dream of the godhead, until a true Awakening occurs, wherein we realize our true natures as none other than the divine nature? IOW, it's not somewhere else, even during this dream-sleep. It's right here, all the while.

 

[wizanda]

But even so, could it be that the divine nature is asleep in each of us while we are in the state of Identifcation, playing out the dream of the godhead, until a true Awakening occurs, wherein we realize our true natures as none other than the divine nature?

We can recognize we're inside the CPU, and being processed; yet we're so limited in comparison...

We're a single perspective; the CPU quantifies all perspectives.

We've all got divine nature already as being Elohim or Angels; why would anyone want to steal the role of being the CPU, that to me is why people go to Hell, as they're so full of their self, they fall lower than here.

In my opinion.

 

[syo]

Some churches tend to call Jesus fully God and fully man. Is there a difference between this description, and, for instance, God & man?


Does this change His person?

Is fully God and fully man, clear, or confusing?


Thanks

fully god/man is the correct approach. it means that he is both with all the characteristics.

 

[wizanda]

fully god/man is the correct approach.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

Psalms 146:3 Don’t put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help.

Isaiah 51:12 “I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you, that you are afraid of man who shall die, and of the son of man who will be made as grass?

In my opinion.

 

[74x12]

John is made up, he never said that.

Where do you get that idea? The book of John is one of the most spiritual and is definitely from God.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

In the literal Hebrew it is slightly different. Basically it means that God is not a man who lies. This means God could be manifest as a man who only speaks the truth.

In the literal Hebrew:
God [is] not a man and lies, And a son of man and repents! Has He said and does He not do? And spoken and does He not confirm it? (Adapted from Young's Literal Translation)

Psalms 146:3 Don’t put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help.

Isaiah 51:12 “I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you, that you are afraid of man who shall die, and of the son of man who will be made as grass?

In my opinion.

The Son of God is definitely excepted by these 3 verses:

Psalm 2:12 (KJV)
... Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

And in Psalm 21:4 we see the Son of God the Messiah will live forever through the resurrection.

"He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever." (KJV)

And in Psalm 72:5 (about the Messiah the Son of God):

"They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations." (KJV)

 

[Sleeppy]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

Psalms 146:3 Don’t put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help.

Isaiah 51:12 “I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you, that you are afraid of man who shall die, and of the son of man who will be made as grass?

In my opinion.

I've been paying attention to what you've been saying, and I'm curious.. You've also quoted this:

Exodus 15:3

YHVH a man of battle; YHVH His name.


Are these verses implemented according to your recollection of them, in relation to any given topic? Or are you using online cross-references?