Did Jesus claim to be God?

[sojourner]

The Holy Spirit is the rays of the sun, so to speak. The rays are not the SUN, however, If we bathed directly in the energy of the sun we would be consumed. But the rays of the sun at the proper distance do not.

Jesus WAS, physically, a human being or everything about Him is pointless. Jesus WAS the Perfect Mirror of God's Emanations, or everything about Him is pointless.

Regards,
Scott

I'll buy that. That's great! To say that Jesus was anything but completely human is heresy.

You are correct in saying that the Holy Spirit is not the Father ... nor is Jesus the Father. The function of the Holy Spirit is different from the Father. Jesus' function is different than the Father's.

But Jesus, at the same time, is also completely divine, or everything about him is pointless. In trinitarian theology, the concept of "God with us" is extremely important. It dissolves the disconnect between God and humanity. That's what brings reconciliation. God has broken in to the human story and become part of it. God takes our evilness and works God's will through that aspect of humanity, completely cleansing us.

I do have to say that I like aspects of the Baha'i ideas of divine wisdom. But I see it working in conjunction with Christian theology a little differently.

 

[Popeyesays]

I'll buy that. That's great! To say that Jesus was anything but completely human is heresy.

You are correct in saying that the Holy Spirit is not the Father ... nor is Jesus the Father. The function of the Holy Spirit is different from the Father. Jesus' function is different than the Father's.

But Jesus, at the same time, is also completely divine, or everything about him is pointless. In trinitarian theology, the concept of "God with us" is extremely important. It dissolves the disconnect between God and humanity. That's what brings reconciliation. God has broken in to the human story and become part of it. God takes our evilness and works God's will through that aspect of humanity, completely cleansing us.

I do have to say that I like aspects of the Baha'i ideas of divine wisdom. But I see it working in conjunction with Christian theology a little differently.

I'm glad to reach some consensus, since we both understand better what the other is saying. Where I seem to push the envelope too far for you is the insistence that Jesus not the only Perfect Reflection of God. By having other renewals of the covenant and other perfect Reflections come to mankind, "Emmanuel" (God is with us) is maintained.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

I'm glad to reach some consensus, since we both understand better what the other is saying. Where I seem to push the envelope too far for you is the insistence that Jesus not the only Perfect Reflection of God. By having other renewals of the covenant and other perfect Reflections come to mankind, "Emmanuel" (God is with us) is maintained.

Regards,
Scott

Our differnces seem to lie in what exactly comprises the "God With Us" idea. I maintain the trinitarian response. You do not. Again, that's why we adhere to different religions. While I do accept that leaders of other religions are reflections of God in some significant way, and, while I'm open-minded, liberal and intelligent enough to be willing and unafraid to be open to the possibility that Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha, etc. are all perfect reflections of God, I'm just Christian enough that I'm not willing to completely go there.

My own feelings aside, I think that trinitarianism makes sense, and it's a valid theology, drawing its conclusions from scripture, as we have it. Just as Baha'i theology makes sense, is a valid theology, and draws its conclusions from scripture.

If we look beyond all the differences, we both do agree that God is with us. And, perhaps that's the most important thing to realize, after all.

 

[Popeyesays]

Our differnces seem to lie in what exactly comprises the "God With Us" idea. I maintain the trinitarian response. You do not. Again, that's why we adhere to different religions. While I do accept that leaders of other religions are reflections of God in some significant way, and, while I'm open-minded, liberal and intelligent enough to be willing and unafraid to be open to the possibility that Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha, etc. are all perfect reflections of God, I'm just Christian enough that I'm not willing to completely go there.

My own feelings aside, I think that trinitarianism makes sense, and it's a valid theology, drawing its conclusions from scripture, as we have it. Just as Baha'i theology makes sense, is a valid theology, and draws its conclusions from scripture.

If we look beyond all the differences, we both do agree that God is with us. And, perhaps that's the most important thing to realize, after all.

:highfive: Amen~:takeabow:

Regards,
Scott

 

[Smoke]

1) Well...to an extent. They did deviate.

From this distance in time and space, it's hard to know just how much each group deviated from Paul's original theology. You can make a case for Marcionism from the authentic writings of Paul, for instance, and some of the Pseudo-Pauline epistles may have been written specifically to counteract those tendencies.

3) You're probably right. But, I don't really think a "correct" understanding is all that important to Jesus, much as many communities would like to think that it is.

A "correct" understanding is important to orthodox Christians; hence their traditional insistence on creeds and statements of belief. So it's abundantly fair to question whether their understanding is, in fact, correct.

4) Well...I hate to disappoint you. Unfortunately, the human community is the best reflection we have of the nature of Jesus. :faint: Sorry...

For the most part, Christian orthodoxy doesn't impress me as reflecting the teachings of Jesus very well at all. If, as a religion, it hasn't grasped his teachings, why should we think it's grasped his nature?

 

[Smoke]

But Jesus, at the same time, is also completely divine, or everything about him is pointless.

But only for those forms of Christianity that make his divinity the centerpiece of their theology; that is, for Pauline Christians: Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Marcionites, Arians, Nestorians. For non-Pauline Christians, like the Ebionites, for many liberal Christians, for Jehovah's Witnesses, and for non-Christian religions like Unitarianism, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and non-Orthodox Quakers, and even for some Jews, Jesus is meaningful even without being divine.

 

[sojourner]

From this distance in time and space, it's hard to know just how much each group deviated from Paul's original theology. You can make a case for Marcionism from the authentic writings of Paul, for instance, and some of the Pseudo-Pauline epistles may have been written specifically to counteract those tendencies.


A "correct" understanding is important to orthodox Christians; hence their traditional insistence on creeds and statements of belief. So it's abundantly fair to question whether their understanding is, in fact, correct.


For the most part, Christian orthodoxy doesn't impress me as reflecting the teachings of Jesus very well at all. If, as a religion, it hasn't grasped his teachings, why should we think it's grasped his nature?

:biglaugh: Yeah, Orthodox Xy has certainly had its share of foibles. Just read all the posts in this forum whose subjects propagate judgment and hatred.

Please note that I'm not limiting the "community" to only orthodox Christians. I think we have to think of the "community" in worldwide and inclusive terms. As I've said before, we're all in the boat together!!!

 

[James the Persian]

But only for those forms of Christianity that make his divinity the centerpiece of their theology; that is, for Pauline Christians: Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Marcionites, Arians, Nestorians. For non-Pauline Christians, like the Ebionites, for many liberal Christians, for Jehovah's Witnesses, and for non-Christian religions like Unitarianism, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and non-Orthodox Quakers, and even for some Jews, Jesus is meaningful even without being divine.

Just one point. The JW Christ is every bit as divine as the Arian Christ (i.e. not very by my understanding). Both believe(d) in first created being who I would class as semi-divine through whom all other created things were created, who is subordinate to and a seperate entity from the Father and who was Incarnate as the man Jesus Christ. The only real difference between the two with regards to who Christ is is that the Arians called him the Logos and the JWs call him the Archangel Michael. I feel, therefore that you either have the Arians in the wrong list or, more probably, you need a third list of those who see Christ as semi-divine to include the Arians and JWs and, arguably, certain Gnostic and Adoptionalist sects as well.

James

 

[sojourner]

But only for those forms of Christianity that make his divinity the centerpiece of their theology; that is, for Pauline Christians: Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Marcionites, Arians, Nestorians. For non-Pauline Christians, like the Ebionites, for many liberal Christians, for Jehovah's Witnesses, and for non-Christian religions like Unitarianism, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and non-Orthodox Quakers, and even for some Jews, Jesus is meaningful even without being divine.

Well...that's where I come from, so that's what makes sense to me. I'm not saying that it must make sense to everyone else, although I probably did come off that way.

 

[Anastasios]

Well...that's where I come from, so that's what makes sense to me. I'm not saying that it must make sense to everyone else, although I probably did come off that way.

"WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"? The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it."

 

[may]

"WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"? The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it."

i agree with every thing you have said , that is so true

 

[Smoke]

Just one point. The JW Christ is every bit as divine as the Arian Christ (i.e. not very by my understanding). Both believe(d) in first created being who I would class as semi-divine through whom all other created things were created, who is subordinate to and a seperate entity from the Father and who was Incarnate as the man Jesus Christ. The only real difference between the two with regards to who Christ is is that the Arians called him the Logos and the JWs call him the Archangel Michael. I feel, therefore that you either have the Arians in the wrong list or, more probably, you need a third list of those who see Christ as semi-divine to include the Arians and JWs and, arguably, certain Gnostic and Adoptionalist sects as well.

I really don't think the JW Christ is every bit as divine as the Arian Christ, but I don't claim to know that much about either. I do know that JW's don't pray to Christ, and that Arians did regard him as divine, though not on the same level as the Father.

 

[sojourner]

"WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"? The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it."

They did! Do we not read a whole lot about the Messiah in Isaiah, for one example???

We have to remember that, in talking about what Jesus said, we have only the testimony of second and third generation Christians, writing and editing at least forty years after the fact. It was the writers who gave us the record of what Jesus did nor did not say. biblical reticence in the matter can be interpreted any number of ways, as well as the written quotations of Jesus in the matter. I believe the Trinity is scripturally evident, although not particularly in the included quotations of Jesus. That thought is so central, that we find it sprinkled throughout scripture.

While the doctrine may fave been formulized and formalized hundreds of years later, and while the motivation may have been political, I think that God's people have always had the doctrinal idea of the Trinity. As I said, it is sprinkled throughout scripture. God has always chosen to work within the human condition, and the councils were no different.

While the Trinity is a mystery and beyond human reasoning, we can still perceive it -- it has been revealed to us, even though we cannot adequately verbalize it. One cannot adequately verbalize God, either, though you would agree that God exists...

The historical testimony is not so clear as you would have us think. I believe the Trinity is truth, regardless of how or when it was formalized.

 

[Anastasios]

I believe the Trinity is truth, regardless of how or when it was formalized.

well, that is what I am saying! they believe without questioning and apprehending the idea. They just accept as it is.

 

[sojourner]

well, that is what I am saying! they believe without questioning and apprehending the idea. They just accept as it is.

Christians are not so blind and gullible as you seem to think we are. There are a great many theologians and exegetes, both clergy and lay, who use their brains, as well as their hearts, to unearth Biblical truth.

Your whole premise appears to be flawed. Just because you fail to apprehend the idea, doesn't mean that there aren't many, many people who do.

 

[Anastasios]

Christians are not so blind and gullible as you seem to think we are. There are a great many theologians and exegetes, both clergy and lay, who use their brains, as well as their hearts, to unearth Biblical truth.

Your whole premise appears to be flawed. Just because you fail to apprehend the idea, doesn't mean that there aren't many, many people who do.

The history of paganism has much more longer history than any religion we have, they also had theologians, both clergy and lay, who use their brains, as well as their hearts. For example, the cult of Apollo was quite remarkable in prophecy and there were prophets under this cult, as well as the other greek or roman gods/goddesses. But eventually it changed.
Every religion has these features. So, the opinion you suggest cannot be used as criteria for truth.
There is only one fair way for everyone to apprehend the idea of God, and it is rationalism. That is only fair way to get the truth. No religion can be alive longer, and feed its believers longtemps, if it is far from rationalism.

 

[Judgement Day]

"WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity?..."

That is an EXCELLENT point Brother! You stunned my heart. :clap

 

[sojourner]

The history of paganism has much more longer history than any religion we have, they also had theologians, both clergy and lay, who use their brains, as well as their hearts. For example, the cult of Apollo was quite remarkable in prophecy and there were prophets under this cult, as well as the other greek or roman gods/goddesses. But eventually it changed.
Every religion has these features. So, the opinion you suggest cannot be used as criteria for truth.
There is only one fair way for everyone to apprehend the idea of God, and it is rationalism. That is only fair way to get the truth. No religion can be alive longer, and feed its believers longtemps, if it is far from rationalism.

Why can the opinion I suggest not determine truth? Can (and does) not our perception of truth change, as we change? Who's to say that Christianity will not outlast the pagan religions, both in terms of ability to speak to truth, and in terms of longevity?

That's my argument. The scholars, theologians and exegetes have used rational thought, and they agree with the Trinity.

 

[Popeyesays]

That's my argument. The scholars, theologians and exegetes have used rational thought, and they agree with the Trinity.

The scholars, the theologians and the exegetes also supported the inquisition against Galileo, saying that no man might challenge the obvious truth that the sun orbited the earth according to God's decree.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

The scholars, the theologians and the exegetes also supported the inquisition against Galileo, saying that no man might challenge the obvious truth that the sun orbited the earth according to God's decree.

Regards,
Scott

:biglaughretty much shoots down Anastasios' statement about rationalism... we just don't have enough information to make a rational claim on absolute truth.

Scholars, exegetes and theologians are human, just like everyone else. the doctrine of the Trinity isn't an absolute. Perhaps there can be no absolute truth where humanity is concerned, since humanity cannot see or reason absolutely. Perhaps we need to work with truth as being relative to what we are capable of understanding. The Trinity is truth, relative to Christian understanding, just as Allah is truth relative to Muslim understanding. Perhaps any absolute truth is greater than any one perspective...

Scientists are now finding out that the laws of physics might not work just as we thought, with the advent of quantum physics, too.

My whole, entire point with the Trinity is that it is one expression of truth, as that truth is perceived by one group of humanity, and that it is no more or less "incorrect" than any other system of perceiving God. is it perfect? No! That's why it remains a mystery. Maybe someday we might understand more. But the whole "I'm right, you're wrong" argument here is pointless. Can both be right? Why not?