Nature of Jesus..

[Elijah John]

Was Jesus of Nazareth:

1) Completely human?
2) Completely God?
3) Completely human and completely God in the mystery of the hypostatic union?
4) A devout human being, entirely filled with the Holy Spirit?
5) The "Son of God", completely human but "the firstborn of all Creation"?
6) A person who never existed as an individual, but who was an amalgamation of more than a few first century preachers?
7) Other.

Please support your answer.

[Elijah John]

2000 years later and the claim that Jesus is the Christ is still very much alive.

The proclamation I was referring to (which I don't believe) is that "Jesus is God". "Jesus is Christ" is not the same as saying that "Jesus is God".

[dio9]

Our Christian Christ appears to be different from a Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is concerned with historic political economic reality. While the Christian Christ is escapist where the kingdom is where we go after death. As we read from the Gospel of Mark Jesus never claimed to be the Jewish Messiah . Therefore Jesus must be the Christian Christ whose death was an atoning sacrifice for all mankind and everything the Gospels, Letters of Paul, early Christian fathers and theologians said he was. I suppose that would make him all of the above OP categories .

[onewithhim]

If we take the Bible to be accurate then the answer is number three; Jesus was both God and human. He was a man (1 Timothy 2:5) who was not created (John 1:3) but was in very nature (or “subsisted in the form of�) God (Philippians 1:6)

I get the idea of arguing for other options from the scriptures. It’s dramatic. It’s dynamic. It’s fascinating to say that the church got her own scriptures wrong and that now my group is so much smarter than everyone else that we know what the Bible really means. We are drawn to this kind of thinking. It makes for a good work of fiction, but it is not realistic.

Actually it is very realistic. The Scriptures have been doctored from the 2nd century on, some corruptions instituted unwittingly, and others for duplicitous reasons. Translators have tried to remedy this problem with their own versions, producing a plethora of Bible versions that differ with each other on various points.

For example, there are many versions now that translate Philippians 2:6 very differently from the King James. The 21st Century New Testament puts it this way:

"Although he was like God in nature [a spirit person], he never even considered seizing the chance to be equal with God."


This translation of the verse reflects many other versions, just a few of which are: New American Bible; New International Version; Revised English Bible; The Interpreter's Bible; Good News for Modern Man; New American Standard Bible, and on we could go.

The Interpreter's Bible: "Who, being in the form of God did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized." Footnote: "Almost every word in it has to be examined with the closest attention. (a) The word for 'being' is a philosophical word which denotes the underlying nature, as opposed to chance variations. Something which we call humanity is inherent in men, but Christ, in his fundamental attributes, was divine [not necessarily 'diety']. ...
(d) He never attempted the robbery which might have [in his mind] raised him higher. This term, rendered in the Revised Standard Version by a thing to be GRASPED, is the crucial word in the verse, and the meaning of it has been much contested. In the Greek of Paul's time it was often used in a general sense of a prize or a windfall---something one lays hold of at once when it comes his way. The suggestion may thus be that Christ was not tempted by a chance which no one else could have resisted. 'He did not think it a PRIZE to be equal with God.' [ That's different from thinking he was already equal with God.] His mind was set on a quite different aim. But, in Greek, as in English, the word 'robbery' involved the idea of VIOLENT SEIZURE, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belonged to God....[And, further] Paul sets the obedience of Christ over against that old conception of a heavenly being who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God."

Very interesting, and deserves more examination.

Another excellent source for reasoning about the corruption of Scriptures, distorting the meanings, is Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Was Jesus of Nazareth:

7) Other.

Please support your answer.

I have nothing but hearsay evidence for any claim made for Jesus.
So, I can't tell anything about Jesus.

My "Other" is "none of the above".

Although.. the parts about Jesus being a human at least has SOME probability. We know that humans exist. We just don't know if Jesus was a person that really existed or not. The Bible just writes it that way.

I could vote for other numbers, too... I think 8 mentions Jesus not at all existing.. yeah, that's a possibility.. No idea though.

As an agnostic and a skeptic, of course I would say that the probability of a human being a god is pretty darn slim !

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus was a prophet like all the earlier Hebrew prophet , who lived his life in sympathy with God. Sure he knew God his relationship with God was as that of father and son. Just like Elijah he challenged the ruling authority as hypocrites and corrupts.
And Just like Elijah whom they tried to kill they tried and did kill Jesus. Sure God spoke and acted through Jesus , just as God can speak and act through anyone. Man can never be God but God can be man. In this sense God was Jesus , Jesus was not God. Do you see the difference?

You have an interesting position.
The OP and the Forum demands that we support our positions.

[onewithhim]

Actually, Trinitarians say “God is one� and comparing human sacrifice to the Pauline* concept of Jesus’ self-sacrifice is false equivocation.

It seems remarkably close to me. Presumably Christ's crucifixion didn't just happen incidentally. If it was planned then he gave his life for a purpose; this constitutes being sacrificed. So the objection is valid.

Deuteronomy 18:10 says, “There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering…�

This does outlaw human sacrifices – specifically of children, though I think the concept can be applied more generally.

Are you suggesting that any time someone purposefully dies, then that is a human sacrifice of the same accord? If a Secret Service officer were to jump in front of a bullet to save the president like they do on TV, would that be a human sacrifice? Is every soldier who goes off to battle for any reason, knowing they may not return, a human sacrifice? Do you remember the end of the movie Armageddon when Bruce Willis intentionally blew up the asteroid he was on to save those on earth? Was that a human sacrifice of the kind described in Deuteronomy?

I do not see them as being of the same nature. The very broad similarities between the OT law and other kinds of self-sacrifice fall apart when we examine the details, which is why I maintain that this is a false equivocation.

I agree that it depends on the context.

Deut.18:10 was addressing the practice of pagans and also that of the Jews when they fell to adopting religious rites of the nations. (Jeremiah 19:5) Burning people in fire was also apparently something that God had not even imagined, as he says in that verse in Jeremiah. I think that could be applied to the idea of "hell-fire" too.

Your examples of humans sacrificing their lives for other people would not be considered a sacrifice to God (Jehovah). However, soldiers who go off to join the military and are killed, are indeed sacrificing their lives to demons. It is Satan who enjoys all this warfare and slaughter. Jehovah has nothing to do with it.

"The things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers with the demons." (I Corinthians 10:20)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by marco]


[center]
Poets vs. logicians
Part One[/center]

Khayyam puts it well:

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."

In arguments, placing the conclusion into a premise is called "Begging the question".
Khayyam is describing an invalid bit of reasoning, if he came to the conclusion by the very premise he started with. He seems to be going around it tight little circles.

Poets are not always renowned for their LOGICAL reasoning. If logic has a geometry, it would be linear, not circular.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to marco]

I'd love to discuss with you miracles, atonement, resurrection, but fear that might get us too far off the OP/ So I have focused here largely on the incarnation.

The basic reason for giving Christ divine status is the Bible. The NT dos equate Christ with God in many passages, such as the opening of John. The Trinity is rooted in the Bible, though the Bible itself is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little how God is build, provides but snap shots that often conflict and which are left to us to assemble, if we can, into a meaningful, unified whole.

There's John's prologue, and the "I AM" statements. But what other "proof verses" do you have that indicate unamibigously that Jesus is "God"? Beyond John, I see no passages that indicate Jesus is God.

And even John seems undecided on the issue, as he has Jesus making a clear distinction between himself and the Father whom he identifies as the "only true God". (John 17.3)

And if Jesus is indeed "God the Son" as the Church proclaims, and if the Trinity is such a foundational essential doctrine, as the Church so often states, why didn't Jesus shout it from the rooftops, "I am God"? And why does NO ONE in the NT come out and say, clearly, distinctly and unabiguously these three little words: "Jesus is God".

The Hebrew Bible proclaims that "YHVH is God" with repetitive clarity. If Jesus is "God" why doesn't the NT do the same?

Especially, if that belief is what definitively defines what a true Christian is, as the Church so often states, especially when condemning groups like Jehovah's Witnesses.

And if Jesus is (was) indeed "God incarnate" wouldn't that have been important to Matthew, Mark and Luke's audiences as well?

Seems odd that such an important doctrine would be left to theologians and apologists to piece together from various snapshots as in a puzzle.

Such an earth-shattering truth should have been presented in clear focus, like a beautiful portrait. That is, if it were true.

Thank you for NOT saying that John sees Jesus as God. I figured I had objected to that enough times, with Scriptural evidence.

The Trinity is FAR from being "rooted in the Bible," as you have brought out. It is ludicrous, in my estimation and in the estimation of 9 million of my spiritual brothers and sisters, as well as thinking, reasoning individuals.

You are SO right that nowhere in Scripture, including John's Gospel, is Jesus said to be God. As you say, such an important doctrine would be CRYSTAL CLEAR if it were true. For such weight to be given a doctrine, and to base the entire belief system of Christianity on it, it would be clearly explained, to be clearly understood, in the Scriptures.

I have provided Scriptural proof that the "I AM" theory is bogus, yet it continues to be given credence. That's sad. Here are a couple of places to find sanity on the issue:

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... mighty-god

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... t-say-i-am


I have also commented that even John 1:1 does not prove Jesus is God.

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html

There is so much information on the fact that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. You have brought up an unassailable point: Jesus said to the Father that the Father is the ONLY true God.

[onewithhim]

Our Christian Christ appears to be different from a Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is concerned with historic political economic reality. While the Christian Christ is escapist where the kingdom is where we go after death. As we read from the Gospel of Mark Jesus never claimed to be the Jewish Messiah . Therefore Jesus must be the Christian Christ whose death was an atoning sacrifice for all mankind and everything the Gospels, Letters of Paul, early Christian fathers and theologians said he was. I suppose that would make him all of the above OP categories .

So we must toss out Jesus' statement in John (as follows)?

"The woman said to him: 'I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever this one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.' Jesus said to her: 'I who am speaking to you am he.'" (John 4:25,26)

Notice also that the woman understood that the Messiah would "declare all things OPENLY." If the Trinity was true, he would have declared it openly. This is what believers in the Hebrew Scriptures believed, not what you are saying.

If Jesus was a "Christ" that was not according to the Scriptural requirements, then he could not have died in our places.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 66 by Elijah John]

The early church definitely did not share the disdain that later Christians have for the "pagan." Augustine, for example, said there were great treasures among teh pagans that the church should use. He also said that if Plotinus changed but a few words, he'd be Christian. He also said Plato was the most Christian of all philosophers. And Augustine liberally incorporated Hellenic metaphysics into this doctrine of God. St. Thomas Aquinas marks the rediscovery of Aristotle. And it has been said Thomas cites Aristotle more than he does Christ even. You can see something of this in church arthecture, which is essentially based on the Greco-Roman style. There is no uniquely Christian architecture.

As I said before, the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is actually built. The earliest Christians were among the lower classes, no education, and actually found the world of the intellengencia to be quite threatening. Witness Paul's disdain for the wisdom of the world. To be expected, as the Jews, as well as other minorities, were viewed as ignorant barbarians. However, if the church was to grow, really survive, it had to work its way into the upper classes, into the intellengencia. That meant it had to come to terms with individuals who has a strong philosophical background and had big questions. Hence, the church freely incorporated Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection into its theooogy. The classical or traditional model of picture of God as he is in his own nature came largely from Hellenic substance metaphysics, which enshrined the immune and the immutable, not Scripture.

Apparently, you and I disagree on Scripture. I see Christ as proclaiming from the roof tops that he is God. Indeed, that's one of the major charges his enemies levy against him.