How can God be Jesus, and the father, yet Jesus not be the father?

[sojourner]

Ok, heres the theology, lol. G-d, who is the father, incarnates, via Mary, as Esa. Esa is not 'literally' the son of G-d, He is an image, a manifestation, of G-d. //the father. That is why He is called both the son of god, and G-d. He is the ''son of G-d'', in a metaphoric sense, He is G-d, through Spirit.

I hate to be too quick to push the "heretic" button, because I do grant a lot of leeway within Xtian thought. But you do realize that this "manifestation of God" thing is a classic heresy that was argued down centuries ago? Which means that your belief would lie outside orthodoxy -- which, don't get me wrong -- is OK, it's just not a belief that's been historically held by the Xian community as a whole.

 

[Desert Snake]

I see. So, what is the nature of teaser "two Jesuses," and how are differentiated and identified in the texts?

I think that that is more about the narrative. Esa, really, has two personas, one is the man, the other, is the image, the nature, of G-d. Perhaps these two aspects of Esas personality are represented by what He is ''doing''. When He ascends into the air, for example, He is not a Galilean fisherman, lol; that is ridiculous, imo. He is clearly meant to be taken as a Deific character. When He shows His human traits, we are presented, the 'man aspect.
Though, even when we are presented the man aspect, we are also told that He is Deific. We know that Jesus is Deific throughout the entire narrative, we know this even before He is baptized, since He is honored from birth. There is nothing ''normal'' about His birth in Bethlehem, this is a Deific being throughout.

 

[sojourner]

I think that that is more about the narrative. Esa, really, has two personas, one is the man, the other, is the image, the nature, of G-d. Perhaps these two aspects of Esas personality are represented by what He is ''doing''. When He ascends into the air, for example, He is not a Galilean fisherman, lol; that is ridiculous, imo. He is clearly meant to be taken as a Deific character. When He shows His human traits, we are presented, the 'man aspect.
Though, even when we are presented the man aspect, we are also told that He is Deific. We know that Jesus is Deific throughout the entire narrative, we know this even before He is baptized, since He is honored from birth. There is nothing ''normal'' about His birth in Bethlehem, this is a Deific being throughout.

So, again, how are the two Jesuses differentiated? You've basically laid out the criteria for the deity, but have yet to differentiate that from the human.

 

[Desert Snake]

I hate to be too quick to push the "heretic" button, because I do grant a lot of leeway within Xtian thought. But you do realize that this "manifestation of God" thing is a classic heresy that was argued down centuries ago? Which means that your belief would lie outside orthodoxy -- which, don't get me wrong -- is OK, it's just not a belief that's been historically held by the Xian community as a whole.

Lol I haven't read much on that. I don't mind not being in line with mainstream xianity, I already know that I'm not. I would say, though, that many Xians will agree that Jesus is G-d, then, make a differentiation between G-d and the father, as I have presented in this thread. That is problematic.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, again, how are the two Jesuses differentiated? You've basically laid out the criteria for the deity, but have yet to differentiate that from the human.

Any time we are presented the 'man aspect', it is showing the human Esa. I don't think we have to look for that. He is literally a 'man', in many regards, throughout the entire narrative.

 

[sojourner]

Any time we are presented the 'man aspect', it is showing the human Esa. I don't think we have to look for that. He is literally a 'man', in many regards, throughout the entire narrative.

But, as you say, deific at the same time throughout the narrative. So there is no real differentiation, nor are there "two Jesuses." IOW, Jesus has a dual nature, just as the Trinity doctrine says?

 

[sojourner]

Lol I haven't read much on that. I don't mind not being in line with mainstream xianity, I already know that I'm not. I would say, though, that many Xians will agree that Jesus is G-d, then, make a differentiation between G-d and the father, as I have presented in this thread. That is problematic.

The only differentiation that is made is between Father and Son -- not between Father and God or Son and God. Both Father and Son are God ... but the Father is not the Son. They are two distinct persons that are both the one God.

 

[Desert Snake]

The only differentiation that is made is between Father and Son -- not between Father and God or Son and God. Both Father and Son are God ... but the Father is not the Son. They are two distinct persons that are both the one God.

How can they be distinct persons, and yet still one G-d?

 

[Desert Snake]

But, as you say, deific at the same time throughout the narrative. So there is no real differentiation, nor are there "two Jesuses." IOW, Jesus has a dual nature, just as the Trinity doctrine says?

Not a dual nature. Different manifestations. Same being, different personas.

 

[sojourner]

How can they be distinct persons, and yet still one G-d?

How can my wife and I be distinct persons, yet be one couple?

 

[sojourner]

Not a dual nature. Different manifestations. Same being, different personas.

Either one is human or one is deity. Those are two different natures -- mortal and immortal. Unless you have an explanation for how they are not different natures.

 

[Awoon]

How can God be Love and be a person?

 

[Muffled]

Pretty simple question. My belief is that Jesus is a manifestation of the father, so they are the 'same', except, in form. //In my belief context, ''Jesus'' is not a deified fisherman carpenter Rabbi, btw.

How can God be Jesus, and the father, yet Jesus not be the father?

I believe this is a question of identity not of essence. Jesus and the Father are one essence but Jesus has a different identification from the Father.

I believe this belief is contrary to the facts. Jesus never identifies Himself as the Father but simply one with Him. One could say that Jesus is a manifestation of Jehovah.

I believe this to be false as well. The Father is the Spirit of God outside of the body of Jesus and Jesus has The spirit of God resident in His body. The Form is the same: omnipresent spirit.

I would agree with this that Jesus is not sharing His body with another as is the case with the Paraclete. Also the idea of deification tends to intimate that a man was turned into a god which is not the case either with Jesus or the Paraclete.

 

[Muffled]

You mean that Jesus was a manifestation of G-d like Abraham, Moses and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908? Please elaborate.

Regards

I believe Abraham, Moses etc were not manifestations of God but that they simply were provided a manifestation of God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus is not God. He's God's son, not the same person.

I believe you have no evidence to support your statements.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe this is a question of identity not of essence. Jesus and the Father are one essence but Jesus has a different identification from the Father.

Yes, a literary and persona identity.

I believe this belief is contrary to the facts. Jesus never identifies Himself as the Father but simply one with Him. One could say that Jesus is a manifestation of Jehovah.

Isn't it, that He and the father are one? That means the same, in my book.

I believe this to be false as well. The Father is the Spirit of God outside of the body of Jesus and Jesus has The spirit of God resident in His body. The Form is the same: omnipresent spirit.

This is one interpretation; once Jesu states that He and the father are one, and that He is in the father, and the father in Him, it begins to become clear that they are not separate. The 'separate' teaching is a false, ie mistaken notion, that Jesus is a glorified Rabbi. That is where that belief ultimately stems from, and in which context, actually would make sense, imo.

I would agree with this that Jesus is not sharing His body with another as is the case with the Paraclete. Also the idea of deification tends to intimate that a man was turned into a god which is not the case either with Jesus or the Paraclete.

I'm unsure, then in what manner you are disagreeing with me.

 

[SkylarHunter]

I believe you have no evidence to support your statements.

I believe you should check the bible, if you are a christian and believe in the Bible, of course. If you don't believe in the bible then, no, I have no further evidence.