Can Jesus be considered as both human and divine?

[Thomas123]

In what manner, can this be done?
Personally speaking, I feel that the message of this human philosophy does not transcend into the 'Divine Realm'.
I would like to debate this point with others.
Thanks.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't know about 'debate'. I prefer to 'discuss' - throw up ideas and chew them over. If there is a bit of goodwill and open mind, but of course there is usually an entrenched position, both ways. But that's ok as we don't get an audience vote at the end. Readers, browsers and viewrs have to make up their own minds..

How Jesus could have been (f.s.o.a) wholly man and wholly God is pretty obvious from the gospels. the spirit of God entered into Jesus and the man was occupied by the god. There may be some who insist on a doctrine that the man and god are indistinguishable in a way that we can't understand. But wand - waving is evidence of nothing and is in fact unlogical.; claiming as true (on doctrine) something nobody can understand but they know it on Faith. But I won't get into that.

But I will get into my Pet theory which is that Paul apparently did not see Jesus as God or even occupied by a god. It was (or this is the impression I was left with) the spirit of the messiah who (Paul proposed) came not to free Israel from Roman rule as Luke makes it clear he understood (24.21) but to overcome by obedience (to death) sin brought about by disobedience. Which makes me think that the spirit that came to undo that which it had done was the spirit that had done it - Adam, which would explain that puzzling epithet 'Son of man'.

But the gospels have changed this from being occupied by the spirit of the Messiah to being occupied by the spirit of God. And - if we trust the gospels (personally, I don't) it is clear that Jesus the man only knows what the spirit wants him to know. He doesn't know who touched his robe, he doesn't know that he will change his mind and help the Syrio - Phoencian woman, and he doesn't know that Noah is a myth. He doesn't even seem to know that there is no point asking to be let off crucifixion because if that happens, man will not be saved. But like I say 'who says it has to make sense?' The writers thought as far as Judas and the Jews were the baddies, Pilate and the Romans were the goodies, but forced by the Jews, who were the baddies, into doing what they did. Not that Pilate was working to foil God's plan and the Sanhedrin were trying to make it work; and if Satan entered into Judas, it was part of God's plan to accomplish Jesus'sacrifice.

Not for the first time, Satan seems to do God's dirty work for Him rather than try to undermine him (but there is an apologetic but I'll let the apologists work it out).

The thing is, that the spirit b(God or messiah) either entered Jesus or was already there. On the cross, we get a clue that something left Jesus. But only in the Gospel of Peter 'My power, my power, why have you abandoned me?' but of course that one was rejected as heretical. I think the original story was that the spirit (Messianic or divine) left Jesus on the cross, job done. Others will insist it was still there, waiting to re -animate Jesus less than 30 hours later.

Similarly, although I clearly see the spirit descending on Jesus at the baptism, and he had not been occupied by the spirit up to then, Believers will disagree and say that Jesus was also God (by spirit) from the start, and God was merely giving Jesus his endorsement. Why, since, according to Mark, Jesus saw it and apparently nobody else did, is not clear. Except to me. Pet theory The baptism had to be used to discount John as the messiah (failed) and elevate Jesus as the messiah (failed, but he'll be coming back) and so John has to deny that he's the messiah and grovel to Jesus, and Matthew struggles with the idea of John baptising Jesus when Jesus is greater. Answer 'God knows best'. It is what it is and let it be so, for now, even if it makes no sense.

And we have to have the story changed to gospelize the new problem that had cropped up: Jesus had to have been God from the start, not just from the baptism. Not to mention (as John notes (7.42) that Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem, but wasn't. So Luke and Matthew invented two contradictory stories to put the word of God right.

Ok, I can hear the clamour (or clamor...I can never be sure with American spelling) of 'prove it!!'. Well while I can prove the nativities (and the resurrection) too contradictory to be reliable, I can only point to clues about the baptism, the healings and the fig-tree, that they are untrue, but it's 'only a theory' and others will have to make up their minds, as I suppose others will have to do in respect of whether Jesus was occupied by any spirit other than his own, or even whether he ever existed.

[1213]

...
Personally speaking, I feel that the message of this human philosophy does not transcend into the 'Divine Realm'.

Please explain why do you think so?

And what do you think "divine" means in this case?

Bible tells disciples of Jesus can become children of God (John 1:12), does it mean they are divine?

[Thomas123]

Thank You,TRANSPONDER and 1213.

The 'Jesus' teachings of the New Testament appear to emphasise a strong belief in a Divine Afterlife. This appears to me to be at odds with the general Judaic tradition.
The writings talk about a place which is commonly referred to as Heaven, where people meet The Divine. Where would a human, born as a Jew in the 1st Century assemble such a notion, if not that he was in fact Divine and was in fact relating actual experience to his listeners?

[neverknewyou]

In what manner, can this be done?
Personally speaking, I feel that the message of this human philosophy does not transcend into the 'Divine Realm'.
I would like to debate this point with others.
Thanks.

Divine, heavenly figure, according to the earliest (pre-gospel), epistles. Paul was waiting for his Jesus Christ figure to come down to earth on a cloud of glory.

Beyond that belief varied;

Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
Catholicism – Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

[neverknewyou]

In what manner, can this be done?
Personally speaking, I feel that the message of this human philosophy does not transcend into the 'Divine Realm'.
I would like to debate this point with others.
Thanks.

My personal opinion is that Jesus is a hybrid of Greek mythology and ancient Hebrew scripture.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank You,TRANSPONDER and 1213.

The 'Jesus' teachings of the New Testament appear to emphasise a strong belief in a Divine Afterlife. This appears to me to be at odds with the general Judaic tradition.
The writings talk about a place which is commonly referred to as Heaven, where people meet The Divine. Where would a human, born as a Jew in the 1st Century assemble such a notion, if not that he was in fact Divine and was in fact relating actual experience to his listeners?

Well, Jews did (and do so far as I know) believe in a heaven which is where God sat on his throne dishing out orders to his angels.

Humans did not go there, generally, after they died. They stayed in the ground until the Last Days when (Pharisee belief) the messiah would come and the dead would come out to be judged, the just and righteous would live on earth forever and the wicked would be cast into the fire. The gospels are full of this idea but it is overlaid by the belief that, in fact the believers would go to heave to live with God. Now, don't ask me how the idea changed. I have not studied early Christian theology too much, but I wouid propose that around the time the Gospels were being formed 1st -3rd c AD, the idea of an early eternal life was shifted to a heavenly one, and we still have the two conflicting ideas today - going to heaven or hell as soon as you die AND staying in the ground until Jesus returns.

I think the changeover can be seen in Matthew's crucifixion where he alone depicts the tombs opening. I suggest that Matthew was trying to make the last days a thing already done. But then, Matthew 26.64 also envisages Jesus coming again as in the Last Days, so who knows?.

In what manner, can this be done?
Personally speaking, I feel that the message of this human philosophy does not transcend into the 'Divine Realm'.
I would like to debate this point with others.
Thanks.

Divine, heavenly figure, according to the earliest (pre-gospel), epistles. Paul was waiting for his Jesus Christ figure to come down to earth on a cloud of glory.

Beyond that belief varied;

Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
Catholicism – Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

Yes, there did seem to be a wide variety of beliefs about Jesus, and even more varied than they are today.

[Thomas123]

.neverknewyou "My personal opinion is that Jesus is a hybrid of Greek mythology and ancient Hebrew scripture."

Reply....I tend to agree with this characterization.

This is more Elysian Fields than Sheol and strongly suggests an overmantle of Hellenistic influences throughout the production of this narrative.

[Thomas123]

TRANSPONDER "But the gospels have changed this from being occupied by the spirit of the Messiah to being occupied by the spirit of God."

Reply: I find your ideas on this matter quite complex and I do agree that this Messiah lore of Isaiah, etc, has become a mutation of a sort in the Jesus Narrative.

[neverknewyou]

.neverknewyou "My personal opinion is that Jesus is a hybrid of Greek mythology and ancient Hebrew scripture."

Reply....I tend to agree with this characterization.

This is more Elysian Fields than Sheol and strongly suggests an overmantle of Hellenistic influences throughout the production of this narrative.

Yes and no, for example the entire crucifixion scene in Mark and Matthew accounts are inspired by Isaiah 53, and some directly copied from Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Ezekiel 37, etc. "Their source for the story is the older scriptures - well, Mark's source is the older scriptures, and Matthew's source is Mark, plus his own additional references."http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm