Who is Jesus to Non-Christians?

[Vouthon]

I am actually rather thankful for this, as I don't really see G-d as a father figure and never really have. King, Master or Creator works better for me, because it reveals G-d's Majesty.

Perhaps that's what @izzy88 was getting at, not so much that this concept was absent from Jewish thought prior to Jesus (evidently it was employed) but rather that he - for some reason - emphasised the "fatherhood" of God to a very pronounced degree, over every other appellation.

The Pater Noster (Our Father) is a case in point - it's very similar to other Jewish prayers but the sheer frequency of Jesus's references to the paternal nature of God in his preaching is, perhaps, uncommon.

The prominence of this idea appears to be derived from Jesus's own perceived relationship with the Father, as in this synoptic prayer:

Matthew 11:25–27 NRSV - At that time Jesus… | Biblia

25 At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; j 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

​

The later Gospel of John is basically an extended exposition on this "relationship" between the Son and the Father.

 

[Rival]

Perhaps that's what @izzy88 was getting at, not so much that this concept was absent from Jewish thought prior to Jesus but rather that he - for some reason - emphasised the "fatherhood" of God to a very pronounced degree, over every other appellation.

The Pater Noster (Our Father) is a case in point - it's very similar to other Jewish prayers but the sheer frequency of Jesus's references to the paternal nature of God in his preaching is, perhaps, uncommon.

The prominence of this idea appears to be derived from Jesus's own perceived relationship with the Father, as in this synoptic prayer:

Matthew 11:25–27 NRSV - At that time Jesus… | Biblia

25 At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; j 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

​

The later Gospel of John is basically an extended exposition on this "relationship" between the Son and the Father.

I see what you're getting at here and appreciate the time you took to write this, but I think I could have worded my statement better. What I mean is, I don't personally connect to G-d by seeing Him as a Father figure; it's easier for me to connect, to relate to Him as a King &c. I assume this as just my personal spirituality. Others may connect better to Him as a father figure, but that's just never worked for me.

 

[Vouthon]

I see what you're getting at here and appreciate the time you took to write this, but I think I could have worded my statement better. What I mean is, I don't personally connect to G-d by seeing Him as a Father figure; it's easier for me to connect, to relate to Him as a King &c. I assume this as just my personal spirituality. Others may connect better to Him as a father figure, but that's just never worked for me.

Interesting, your personal conception of Deity - is it more, "impersonal" then? As in slightly Deistic?

Of the personal God theologies, it strikes me as fairly close to the Islamic conception, which does not describe God through the analogy of fatherhood at all really (unlike Judaism which occasionally does use this image and Christianity in which it is obviously ubiquitous):

Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Sura 112:1–4, Yusuf Ali)​

 

[Rival]

Interesting, your personal conception of Deity - is it more, "impersonal" then? As in slightly Deistic?

It strikes me as fairly close to the Islamic theology, which does not describe God through the analogy of fatherhood all (unlike Judaism which occasionally does use this image and Christianity in which it is obviously ubiquitous):

Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Sura 112:1–4, Yusuf Ali)​

Not at all. In fact the opposite; very personal. I see G-d as a wise King, a learned Master, who has much to teach me. It's a sort of metaphorical sitting on his lap as a close young student may do with a teacher.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For me, Jesus has no relevance. I can't therefore think that there is any influence on me. Also, any beliefs that I may currently have, as far as I am aware, no connection with Jesus.

My post summarized in a lump sum. Nice.

 

[Vouthon]

Not at all. In fact the opposite; very personal. I see G-d as a wise King, a learned Master, who has much to teach me. It's a sort of metaphorical sitting on his lap as a close young student may do with a teacher.

I see, thank you for the explanation.

When you first said "Master", I initially thought you meant slave.

"Servant of God" is naturally a title in all monotheistic traditions (I mean, the official honorific of the Pope is actually "servant of the servants of God") but it doesn't appeal to me as primary relationship between worshipper and worshipped, given the subordinatory implications and a certain coldness.

But student - teacher, that makes sense.

Yet, can a student and teacher - or, worse, a master / slave - ever be as close as a child / parent or a lover?

Not for nothing have many of the mystical traditions - from Christian Song of Songs "divine love" tradition, to Sufism in Islam - relied upon sexual imagery to characterise the God - human relationship, as it's much more intimate than I feel the images are that you are using (just a personal feeling on my part).

 

[Rival]

I see, thank you for the explanation.

When you first said "Master", I initially thought you meant slave.

"Servant of God" is naturally a title in all monotheistic traditions (I mean, the official honorific of the Pope is actually "servant of the servants of God") but it doesn't appeal to me as primary relationship between worshipper and worshipped, given the subordinatory implications and a certain coldness.

But student - teacher, that makes sense.

Yet, can a student and teacher - or, worse, a master / slave - ever be as close as a child / parent or a lover?

Not for nothing have many of the mystical traditions - from Christian Song of Songs "divine love" tradition, to Sufism in Islam - relied upon sexual imagery to characterised the God - human relationship, as it's much more intimate than I feel the images are that you are using (just a personal feeling on my part).

My S/m side may be slipping in a little here. Yes, I do relate to 'Master' and 'Teacher' in a sexual sense. That's my primary sexual preference.

 

[Vouthon]

My S/m side may be slipping in a little here. Yes, I do relate to 'Master' and 'Teacher' in a sexual sense.

OK, it is intimate then

I wrote a thread on this kind of religious mysticism two years ago:

Mystics and the language of sexual love

BDSM worship is a new variation to me on this age-old tradition, I'll say! Talk about "novel mutations" in religious belief.

Although, maybe Hadewijch of Antwerp, a 13th century Flemish mystic of the Catholic Church, got close in her imagery:

Then he [God] came to me himself and took me completely in his arms and pressed me to him. And all my limbs felt his limbs in the full satisfaction that my heart and my humanity desired. Then I was externally completely satisfied to the utmost satiation...

And to that end I wished, inside me, that he would satisfy me with his Godhead in one spirit (1 Cor 6:17) and he shall be all he is without restraint. For that is what it means to satisfy completely: to grow to being god with God...

But all too soon I lost external sight of the shape of that beautiful man, and I saw him disappear to nothing, so quickly melting away and fusing together that I could not see or observe him outside of me, nor discern him within me. It was to me at that moment as if we were one without distinction.

All of this was external, in sight, in taste, in touch, just as people may taste and see and touch receiving the external sacrament, just as a beloved may receive her lover in the full pleasure of seeing and hearing, with the one becoming one with the other.

After this I remained in a state of oneness with my Beloved so that I melted into him and ceased to be myself. And I was transformed and absorbed in the spirit.

From Bernard McGinn "Hadewijch, Vision 7" in The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism​

What have I done to the topic of this thread !

Maybe we can discuss this another time.

 

[dybmh]

What have I done to the topic of this thread !

Dare I say, It's blossoming...

 

[Rival]

OK, it is intimate then

I wrote a thread on this kind of religious mysticism two years ago:

Mystics and the language of sexual love

BDSM worship is a new variation to me on this age-old tradition, I'll say! Talk about "novel mutations" in religious belief.

Although, maybe Hadewijch of Antwerp, a 13th century Flemish mystic of the Catholic Church, got close in her imagery:

Then he [God] came to me himself and took me completely in his arms and pressed me to him. And all my limbs felt his limbs in the full satisfaction that my heart and my humanity desired. Then I was externally completely satisfied to the utmost satiation...

And to that end I wished, inside me, that he would satisfy me with his Godhead in one spirit (1 Cor 6:17) and he shall be all he is without restraint. For that is what it means to satisfy completely: to grow to being god with God...

But all too soon I lost external sight of the shape of that beautiful man, and I saw him disappear to nothing, so quickly melting away and fusing together that I could not see or observe him outside of me, nor discern him within me. It was to me at that moment as if we were one without distinction.

All of this was external, in sight, in taste, in touch, just as people may taste and see and touch receiving the external sacrament, just as a beloved may receive her lover in the full pleasure of seeing and hearing, with the one becoming one with the other.

After this I remained in a state of oneness with my Beloved so that I melted into him and ceased to be myself. And I was transformed and absorbed in the spirit.

From Bernard McGinn "Hadewijch, Vision 7" in The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism​

What have I done to the topic of this thread !

Maybe we can discuss this another time.

There was a Mediaeval picture, a painting I believe, of what appeared to be a very masochistic depiction of as I recall a girl being tortured but scholars(?) believed she was enjoying it. I don't know the context, or can't remember it, but the idea of pleasurable suffering a la religion doesn't seem be anything new, at least for Roman Catholicism.

 

[Vouthon]

There was a Mediaeval picture, a painting I believe, of what appeared to be a very masochistic depiction of as I recall a girl being tortured but scholars(?) believed she was enjoying it. I don't know the context, or can't remember it, but the idea of pleasurable suffering a la religion doesn't seem be anything new, at least for Roman Catholicism.

You have a point there - Shia Islam as well, with the Ashura ceremony where they self-flagelate - admittedly, I've always shirked away from that side of things.

There's certainly a kind of "masochistic" sub-tradition among the many, manifold devotionals in Catholic spiritual history, it's just not a dimension that holds any real attraction to me.

I recall to mind, St. Theresa of Avila's vision of the angel with the phallic shaped spear piercing her - you know, the one by Bernini that's in a cathedral in Rome? "The Ecstasy of St. Theresa....":


Ecstasy of Saint Teresa - Wikipedia

The Life of Teresa of Jesus (1515–1582). Her experience of religious ecstasy in her encounter with the angel is described as follows:​

I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God.

The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.[3]​

It's in the "divine love" tradition of mystical religious experience but my god was it risque.

 

[Riders]

Running off a series of dialogues with those in different faiths, I want to ask a very fundamental question. Who is Jesus to those who don't believe in Him as the Son of God or Messiah as written in parts of the Bible? How does Jesus influence you whether or not he is a main figure in your beliefs? Does your religion pull from some of His doctrines and if so you don't mind sharing what? As Christians consider Him with reverence, please show reverence as well, but I would like to get to know the differing opinions of this inter-faith figure known as Jesus the Christ. Here is an example of a Rabbi finding connections with his faith and Christianity, just to see an example of what I am asking

HE was the Jewish Messiah but not God bot raised from the dead. I do believe Josephus writings that he existed. He was one of the Messiahs, there were many Messiahs in the Messiah movement. He was a Messiah, and I am open to the idea he was the Jewish Messiah not God. He was crucified under Pontius Pilat and died on the cross like other Messiahs!

 

[Rival]

You have a point there - Shia Islam as well, with the Ashura ceremony where they self-flagelate - admittedly, I've always shirked away from that side of things.

There's certainly a kind of "masochistic" sub-tradition among the many, manifold devotionals in Catholic spiritual history, it's just not a dimension that holds any real attraction to me.

I recall to mind, St. Theresa of Avila's vision of the angel with the phallic shaped spear piercing her - you know, the one by Bernini that's in a cathedral in Rome? "The Ecstasy of St. Theresa....":


Ecstasy of Saint Teresa - Wikipedia

The Life of Teresa of Jesus (1515–1582). Her experience of religious ecstasy in her encounter with the angel is described as follows:​

I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God.

The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.[3]​

It's in the "divine love" tradition of mystical religious experience but my god was it risque.

So after trashing this thread all we've figured out is,

Hit me harder??

 

[Riders]

I will assume Jesus was an actual historical, although some find that controversial.

My view is that he was an 'agitator' with ties to those who became Zealots, expressing the dislike of the local Jewish populace with those in control. his religious message was pretty much in line with those of the Pharisees. He was one of a fairly long list of itinerant preachers of that time. I doubt that the historical Jesus saw himself as divine--that belief came later when Paul overturned things.

Once he died, Paul took over the group of followers and invented a form of Christianity. Over the course of the next three centuries, the theology was invented to support these views, and the Roman empire's adoption of them. This involved labeling some texts as canonical and others as heretical. The difference wasn't decided until quite late (Arian Christianity is an example of a late version that disagreed with the orthodox views).

Anyway, I see Jesus as a Jewish agitator trying to get people to go back to their old beliefs and to fight those who were seen as illegitimate rulers.

On some level I agree with this, then the scenario of him being raised from the dead was invented.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Who is Jesus to those who don't believe in Him as the Son of God or Messiah as written in parts of the Bible?

A great man, but a man nonetheless, one in a long line of God's chosen Messengers to humankind, the Messiah for the Jews on his first 'mission' and the Messiah for all people when he returns to Earth in the end times.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps that's what @izzy88 was getting at, not so much that this concept was absent from Jewish thought prior to Jesus (evidently it was employed) but rather that he - for some reason - emphasised the "fatherhood" of God to a very pronounced degree, over every other appellation.

Did he do that to cover what was known and common in those times that he was conceived by Mary before her marriage? Common because such children of Jewish mothers were accepted as Jews.

 

[izzy88]

Did he do that to cover what was known and common in those times that he was conceived by Mary before her marriage?

As dishonorable as having a child out of wedlock may have been back in the day, would claiming that God himself is your real father be any better? I mean, Jesus was crucified precisely for claiming he was the son of God; I doubt he was just saying it to try to avoid embarrassment.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He wanted people to follow him and not the Jewish religious authority of the time. So sure, the Jews were against him and the Romans were not too enamored of such pop-up prophets and messiahs of the Jews of whom there were many. They were in equilibrium with the Jewish religious authorities. Monotheist religions have a surfeit of such messengers and messages from God / Allah.

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
I will assume Jesus was an actual historical, although some find that controversial.
-------------
Native said: ↑
How do you then explain the miraculous Virgin Mary conception and the latter dead, resurrection and ascension?

Myths.

So to you, Jesus was both an actual historical AND a myth? That´s something of an assumption!

 

[Double Fine]

I will assume Jesus was an actual historical, although some find that controversial.

My view is that he was an 'agitator' with ties to those who became Zealots, expressing the dislike of the local Jewish populace with those in control. his religious message was pretty much in line with those of the Pharisees. He was one of a fairly long list of itinerant preachers of that time. I doubt that the historical Jesus saw himself as divine--that belief came later when Paul overturned things.

Once he died, Paul took over the group of followers and invented a form of Christianity. Over the course of the next three centuries, the theology was invented to support these views, and the Roman empire's adoption of them. This involved labeling some texts as canonical and others as heretical. The difference wasn't decided until quite late (Arian Christianity is an example of a late version that disagreed with the orthodox views).

Anyway, I see Jesus as a Jewish agitator trying to get people to go back to their old beliefs and to fight those who were seen as illegitimate rulers.

Polymath, as I live and breathe!

How are you doing, amigo? Where is the rest of the crew at?