Jesus (pbuh) - failed Prophet

[BlaznFattyz]

As far as I know, the closest the New Testament comes to saying that "Jesus is God," literally and not metaphorically

Jesus is God. With a comparison of the Old Testament and the New Testament, one can see that both the Son and the Father have the same characteristics.
Thru the many scriptures and many that are not listed here, we see how the Father has given his Son glory whose name is above all names, because He too is YHWH.

Creator
John 1:3, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Col. 1:16-17, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Job 33:4, "The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
Isaiah 40:28, "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."


First and Last
Rev. 1:17, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"
Rev. 2:8, "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."
Rev. 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
Isaiah 41:4, "Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD -- with the first of them and with the last -- I am he."
Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."


I AM
John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" See Exodus 3:14
John 13:19, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."
Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"
Isaiah 43:10, "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
See also Deut. 32:39


Judge
2 Tim. 4:1, "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..."
2 Cor. 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."
Joel 3:12, "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side."
Romans 14:10, "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."


King
Matt. 2:2, "...Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
Luke 23:3, "So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied."
See also John 19:21
Jer. 10:10, "But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath."
Isaiah 44:6-8, "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
See also Psalm 47


Light
John 8:12,"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Luke 2:32, "a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."
See also John 1:7-9
Psalm 27:1, "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?"
Isaiah 60:20 ,"our sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end."
1 John 1:5, "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."


Rock
1 Cor. 10:, "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."
See also 1 Pet. 2:.
Deut. 32:4, "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."
See also 2 Sam. 22:32 and Isaiah 17:10.


Savior
John 4:24, "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"
1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"
Isaiah 45:21, "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."


Shepherd
John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Heb. 13:20, "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,"
See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25
Psalm 23:1, "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want."
Isaiah 40:11, "He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."

 

[madeinrussia89]

This is the bit I am trying to get to grips with. I speak to one Christian and they explain it as you have done here, which suggests Jesus (pbuh) is an aspect of G-d. Then I speak to another that states Jesus (pbuh) is sitting at the right hand of G-d, he has been given the power to judge us and you can't get to G-d unless you go through Jesus (pbuh). That would surely suggest two seperate entities, not a single G-d?

I do not see how G-d can sit beside Himself or hand Himself the power to judge us, He simply is G-d and has those powers. As for G-d telling us to go through Himself to get to Him this seems to make little sense.

Still confused
Salaam

Well, when people say " Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God " they mean God the Father, another aspect of again, the same essence.

The whole " you can't get to God unless you go through Jesus " can be seen as that if you deny Jesus, you deny a piece of trinity, and that means you are denying God, so naturally how could you get to him if you denied him.

It's like two personas side by side, not two seperate Gods.

 

[Muslimwoman]

As far as I know, the closest the New Testament comes to saying that "Jesus is God," literally and not metaphorically, is in Colossians 1:15, which says he is the image of the invisible God. That verse, however, doesn't actually say that Jesus is God. It says Jesus is an image (ie. projection) of God. There is a difference between saying Jesus is God and that Jesus projects God. Because we can only safely assume this is what the early Christians believed because Paul explicitly states that, the latter is a much safer assumption than the former. There is no explicit statement on the former as far as I know.

What a very interesting post Saltmeister, thank you very much.

I was reading the other day that the translation from Greek says 'unique' not 'begotten'. Have you read anything about that? I find that very interesting as Jesus (pbuh) was indeed unique as he was born of a virgin birth. Could this issue have arisen from a simple mistranslation?

There is a common argument in Christianity that the Bible is "plainly readable" by everyone, not necessarily by highly intellectual people. True, yes it is "plainly readable" to some extent, but that does not mean that its true intent is plainly visible to all. The true intent is more important than being able to read the words, sentences and paragraphs and understand them.

As I feel sure you already know, we have this issue in Islam with regard to the Quran. The more I learn about the historical aspects of life at the time (including customs, politics, etc) the more I see how much knowledge is required to read the texts. However, I do worry that if only a small percentage of people can read and interpret scriptures then the rest of us are subject to their misinterpretaions, wants and desires.

There is a tendency, as adherents of the Abrahamic faiths, to assume or assert that it could only mean one thing to oppose adherents of another faith. If you're ever read discussions between Christians and Muslims who try to prove one is right and the other is wrong, you know what I mean. Anyone who does that behaves like a politician. They are bad politicians if they don't know they are being political when they do it.

I know exactly what you mean and I find it very frustrating. Unfortunately I doubt we will ever get them to open their minds, so we just have to accept it and try to understand things for ourselves.

But nevertheless, even with our understanding of politics, we still can't know for sure, even as people who think like politicians and that we are thinking like politicians, if we're right . . . because you know . . . politics is about perception. What we see in Scripture is an image . . . a perception.

Why do you think G-d would provide Scriptures as a guide for humanity that only a limited number of people, who are generally prone to 'spin', can interpret? This always confuses me (seems I am easily confused these days ).

The whole " you can't get to God unless you go through Jesus " can be seen as that if you deny Jesus,

I don't mean to be rude but that is not my interpretation, I was simply repeating the words of Christians.

It's like two personas side by side, not two seperate Gods.

But that is not what comes across from all Christians. I accept I may be misunderstanding what they mean but it is how it seems to me from what I am told.

 

[madeinrussia89]

I don't mean to be rude but that is not my interpretation, I was simply repeating the words of Christians.

I didn't take it as rudeness, not at all, I understand that you do not accept it, I was just providing further explanation because I thought it was confusing you, as it can be a confusing statement to both Christians and non-Christians.

But that is not what comes across from all Christians. I accept I may be misunderstanding what they mean but it is how it seems to me from what I am told.

I haven't got that same message about the Trinity from all Christians either, which is a terrible shame for Christianity as a whole.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I didn't take it as rudeness, not at all, I understand that you do not accept it, I was just providing further explanation because I thought it was confusing you, as it can be a confusing statement to both Christians and non-Christians.

Thank you, I try to be respectful when asking about other peoples faith but sometimes it is difficult to ask questions without offending someone.

I haven't got that same message about the Trinity from all Christians either, which is a terrible shame for Christianity as a whole.

Yes such a shame. I am pleased though that it isn't simply my inability or lack of desire to understand. Thank you for your patience with me.

Salaam

 

[BlaznFattyz]

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[madeinrussia89]

The father, the son, and the holy spirit, all together these are called hypostasis in Orthodoxy. This word means that the father and the son are different personas (not different people, big big difference), they still share a single ousia (or essence), it's still just God.

Okay, I was partly incorrect in this statement and didn't want to lead others into confusion without correcting it. This word means that the father, the son, and the holy spirit are all different persons (not personas, because that would implicate that God has " masks " he shows people) but they still share a single ousia (essence).

 

[Muslimwoman]

Okay, I was partly incorrect in this statement and didn't want to lead others into confusion without correcting it. This word means that the father, the son, and the holy spirit are all different persons (not personas, because that would implicate that God has " masks " he shows people) but they still share a single ousia (essence).

Oh dear, so that means placing partners with G-d if they are seperate beings. Sorry I shall have to stick with my belief in Oneness of G-d.

Salaam

 

[madeinrussia89]

Oh dear, so that means placing partners with G-d if they are seperate beings. Sorry I shall have to stick with my belief in Oneness of G-d.

Salaam

But they're not partners with God because they are all God, in that they all come from one essence.


It's just one of those mysteries.

 

[Muslimwoman]

But they're not partners with God because they are all God, in that they all come from one essence.

But isn't that like saying there is something above G-d, because G-d comes from something (whatever the essence is that you say is in Jesus (pbuh) and the Holy Spirit)?

I don't think it is so much a mystery as a misunderstanding. Is G-d not the Creator of everything, the Ultimate power and goodness?

 

[madeinrussia89]

But isn't that like saying there is something above G-d, because G-d comes from something (whatever the essence is that you say is in Jesus (pbuh) and the Holy Spirit)?

I don't think it is so much a mystery as a misunderstanding. Is G-d not the Creator of everything, the Ultimate power and goodness?

No, it's not like saying there is something above God. God doesn't come from anything but God, it's just that God the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are all of the same Divine Essence. They are all equally God. One is not " above " the other.

It is a mystery because we're never going to fully understand the concept of God, we can't wrap our heads around what God is.

God is the creator of everything. There's no denying that.

 

[Saltmeister]

I was reading the other day that the translation from Greek says 'unique' not 'begotten'. Have you read anything about that? I find that very interesting as Jesus (pbuh) was indeed unique as he was born of a virgin birth. Could this issue have arisen from a simple mistranslation?

Mistranslation or not, to me it doesn't matter that much.

Was he unique? In a way he was: he wasn't an earthly man.

He was special, but not necessarily the way we commonly would think. When Christians affirm the "through Jesus" concept they often quote the passage from John 3:16-21. There is a possibility of taking this passage out of context if you don't read the immediately preceding passage. It's a common practice among Christians to quote John 3:16-21 and then say that it refers to Jesus dying for one's sins. I see the crucifixion as important, but this passage isn't about the crucifixion, but about Jesus' origins and true identity.

This is the preceding passage:

No one has ever gone into heaven gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert was lifted up, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. John 3:13-15

So Jesus was not an earthly man but an unearthly man, a heavenly man, who came from heaven and lived with us for about 30 years. Since he was the only human being to come from heaven, he was the only one to be able to go back to heaven, and therefore, the only one who could show us how to get there. John 3:16-21 now makes more sense.

When he died, he didn't go back to the earth as the rest of us do, but went back to heaven to have eternal life. Jesus came here so he could share his heavenly privileges with the rest of us.

This understanding is crucial. Thinking of Jesus as an earthly man has different implications to thinking of him as a heavenly man.

If Jesus was an earthly man we would ask, "what's so special about him?" He'd just be like the rest of us, undeserving of any special status, because all earthly men and women are equal. All earthly men and women are fundamentally the same. But if we said that no, we comes from another reality, another universe, another plane of existence, and offers us a life in the world from which he came, then that's a completely different story. You can therefore see that the idea of "only through Jesus" isn't about the crucifixion, but about Jesus' origins.

It was a virgin birth because Jesus didn't need an earthly father and earthly mother. He already existed in heaven.

If "only begotten" came from "unique" I'd say that's no surprise.

With regard to the terminology of "Son of God?" We could think of it this way. Jesus came from heaven, the kingdom of heaven, which was also the kingdom of God. If we say that a person who comes from heaven is a "son of heaven" then we could also call that person a "son of God." He came from the kingdom of heaven which is the same thing as the kingdom of God. "Son of Man" could refer to a heavenly man who comes to live with ordinary men and women to become an earthly man, or a heavenly man who came to live among the Kingdoms of Man.

I know exactly what you mean and I find it very frustrating. Unfortunately I doubt we will ever get them to open their minds, so we just have to accept it and try to understand things for ourselves.

Quite ironic don't you think? Those who have more knowledge and experience than us are close-minded? The more you know the less open-minded you become? I guess then, that I'd prefer to be innocent and simple than to be a sage. I'd therefore like to say, greetings MW, as you, too, seem like an innocent-minded person.

Why do you think G-d would provide Scriptures as a guide for humanity that only a limited number of people, who are generally prone to 'spin', can interpret? This always confuses me (seems I am easily confused these days ).

I guess it's because we must follow the footsteps of those who have come before us. We can't understand the path they walked unless we understand the lives of those people, and therefore, the world in which they lived . . . and finally . . . how they conceptualised their relationship with God.

 

[Saltmeister]

It is a mystery because we're never going to fully understand the concept of God, we can't wrap our heads around what God is.

What? We're not supposed to be able to understand God?

Hey, if we don't understand God how can we connect and form a relationship with Him?

I would say we don't have to define God, but we do need to understand Him. We just don't have to define God to understand Him. Therefore He is not meant to be a mystery to us. It's just that His exact structure, composition, functionality, size, mass, weight, physical properties, shape, etc. aren't important. It's only His personality (that we can trust Him) that is important.

 

[madeinrussia89]

What? We're not supposed to be able to understand God?

Hey, if we don't understand God how can we connect and form a relationship with Him?

I would say we don't have to define God, but we do need to understand Him. We just don't have to define God to understand Him. Therefore He is not meant to be a mystery to us. It's just that His exact structure, composition, functionality, size, mass, weight, physical properties, shape, etc. aren't important. It's only His personality (that we can trust Him) that is important.

I think you misunderstood me.

I meant it like you're never going to be able to clear-cut rationalize how 3 are 1 in trinity, some part of it is always going to be beyond us even if we do see it as part of the divine message and therefore truth, that's why it is called a mystery.

The plurality of the Godhead is a truth, but beyond created intellect.

I wasn't insinuating that we can't have a relationship with God, of course we can, what kind of Christian would I be if I said something like that.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

The plurality of the Godhead is a truth, but beyond created intellect.

The plurality of God is truth (father, son, holy spirit). It may be beyond man's natural intellect (those who say they see, but are blind), but not spiritual intellect (those who were blind, but now see). Accepting, believing and trusting in Christ, and being guided by the Spirit allowing him to dwell within you allows these things to be revealed.

But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again.

 

[Muslimwoman]

When he died, he didn't go back to the earth as the rest of us do, but went back to heaven to have eternal life. Jesus came here so he could share his heavenly privileges with the rest of us.

Wonderful explanation, thank you SM. We Muslims accept that Jesus was taken to heaven by G-d but we disagree about the dying on the cross bit (well it wouldn't be religion if we all agreed ).

To me it is unimportant if Jesus (pbuh) was created by G-d in heaven or on earth, as we know he had no father so he was individually created by G-d, making him very special.

However I just cannot accept that he is literally G-d, as he was created by G-d. G-d is one and should be worshipped as such. Jesus (pbuh) was a sign, a gift from G-d, a path to travel to Him. We must be thankful for that but not worship it.

Quite ironic don't you think? Those who have more knowledge and experience than us are close-minded? The more you know the less open-minded you become? I guess then, that I'd prefer to be innocent and simple than to be a sage. I'd therefore like to say, greetings MW, as you, too, seem like an innocent-minded person.

Very ironic indeed. I am more than happy to be in the simple minded club. Anyone else want to join? I just feel that for anyone, no matter how much knowledge they have, to state they have the concrete answer to what G-d is and how we reach Him is either very arrogant or seriously deluded.

Something I have been mulling over the last few days are the words of Jesus(pbuh) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Should this not also apply to our faith? Should we not be perfect worshippers before we criticise other for their beliefs? Anyone think they are perfect? (I need a good laugh ).

I guess it's because we must follow the footsteps of those who have come before us. We can't understand the path they walked unless we understand the lives of those people, and therefore, the world in which they lived . . . and finally . . . how they conceptualised their relationship with God.

Okay now here I have a huge issue. What if those that came before were wrong? What if they were right but the historians incorrectly recorded their lives? I understand what you are saying because obviously with the life of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) you must understand the times he lived in, the political wranglings, etc but I just have a problem saying centuries of scholars say to push people off cliffs so we should do it, even though our scriptures say nothing of this.

I meant it like you're never going to be able to clear-cut rationalize how 3 are 1 in trinity, some part of it is always going to be beyond us even if we do see it as part of the divine message and therefore truth, that's why it is called a mystery.

I shall have to just accept that I am never going to understand the trinity concept.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

We Muslims accept that Jesus was taken to heaven by G-d but we disagree about the dying on the cross bit

then we are not talking about the same jesus, so whatever attributes another religion puts on this alternate jesus doesnt matter or make it ok. the true Jesus died on the cross for all of us, rose again defeating death, taken back up in glory he had with the father, he is the lamb of god as proclaimed by the prophets, by john the baptist, the father, and the holy spirit. he is salvation, and he is eternal life.

You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

 

[madeinrussia89]

I shall have to just accept that I am never going to understand the trinity concept.

Although, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to understand it.

 

[madeinrussia89]

The plurality of God is truth (father, son, holy spirit). It may be beyond man's natural intellect (those who say they see, but are blind), but not spiritual intellect (those who were blind, but now see). Accepting, believing and trusting in Christ, and being guided by the Spirit allowing him to dwell within you allows these things to be revealed.

This reminded me of a time at church when we were having a discussion about reading the Bible and what to do if we don't understand what we're reading, and my priest put it this way from a text we were reading that sometimes "what the mind doesn't understand, the heart will".

That's basically what I go with.

 

[Saltmeister]

I think you misunderstood me.

I meant it like you're never going to be able to clear-cut rationalize how 3 are 1 in trinity, some part of it is always going to be beyond us even if we do see it as part of the divine message and therefore truth, that's why it is called a mystery.

The plurality of the Godhead is a truth, but beyond created intellect.

I wasn't insinuating that we can't have a relationship with God, of course we can, what kind of Christian would I be if I said something like that.

Hey don't get me wrong. I know what it means when someone says the Trinity and God are mysteries. I've seen lots of ways of seeing the Christian concept of God. I don't see Christianity as a religion whose purpose was to introduce mysteries, though I understand what people mean when they say it.

The Trinity is a tradition that tries to make sense of the fact that the three names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are found together in some places in the New Testament. It tries to make sense of Jesus' relationship with God.

It's a mystery to us because we don't understand what the early Christians believed. We are looking into the past and trying to rediscover the beliefs of our ancestors. It may be a mystery to us, but less likely to have been a mystery to the early Christians.

The notion of a Trinity did not exist in Judaism. It's unlikely as well that the early Christians believed in a Trinity. If so, why do we not see dialogue and debate about the three-in-one triune God in the New Testament? The epistles, the letters to the churches discussed issues faced by the Christian communities at the time. If someone had been troubled by a three-in-one triune God concept, it would have been discussed. Even if there was no argument among the community, the apostles would at least have mentioned the three-in-one triune God concept, and have warned us against false teachers that were out to assail this valuable truth.

If the three-in-one triune God concept is essential in Christianity, then I would say that Paul, Peter, James and John have all failed to defend one of the most valuable truths in Christianity, though they warned against so-called "false teachers."

Quite obviously, the three-in-one triune God came later when we forgot what the terminology of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really meant. The early Christians knew what these words meant, but the fact that we have developed hundreds and hundreds of philosophies concerning "the Trinity" is a sign that we are "missing the mark" with regards to what Father, Son and Holy Spirit actually mean.

As I said, the Bible is a piece of literature, and all literature is open to interpretation. A piece of literature has an intended meaning, but can have a hundred many different meanings depending on how you read it. It's our knowledge and experience that allow us to identify the intended meaning. Our reasoning may be wrong, but the insight, exchange and sharing of ideas is far more important than getting the answer right the first time. After 2,000 years, due to cultural influences and lack of an oral tradition, a lot of things get misplaced and distorted. Present creeds and doctrines attempt to preserve the original meaning, but from my point of view, I think a lot of it has become meaningless as the words are repeated over and over again.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bible was written by men. God gave us a mind to think, so he therefore gave us the ability and potential to seek and discover Him. The Bible is therefore a book of miraculous discovery of God through speculation and contemplation with minimal intervention from God. Us discovering God is us reaching our full potential. Those who discredit a sacred text by saying that it cannot be divine material discredit the people who wrote it, who, in turn, are God's creation. Discrediting a text that might indeed contain messages from God, but written by men, could therefore, also be discrediting God.

I have no intention of being an iconoclast. Traditions have their place in our religion as signposts that lead us to God. Some day, however, we are going to have to replace philosophy with reality.

The words identifying Father, Son and Holy Spirit may not even be identifying parts and aspects of God. It may instead be about our spiritual journey in our quest to find God, or the process of spreading the Gospel. The Father refers to something that gives us purpose, the Spirit, something that inspires us. The Son shows us the way. Hence, we are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The word choice is interesting. Why did the early Christians choose the words "Father" and "Son?" "Son" doesn't necessarily mean "biological child." Back then, a son inherited the property of his father. With a lot of people dying through disease and starvation, it probably would have been really difficult trying to maintain lineage simply through blood sons. So why not adopt?

Could "son" not also mean inheritor? When you die your son inherits everything you own. A son owned everything his father owned. This son may not have been a biological son, and it may have been a common understanding that "son" didn't necessarily mean a biological son. You meet you friend in the market place to do business. Your "son" comes with you. A greeting is exchanged, during which you introduce your friend to your "son."

During the conversation he asks, "is he your real son?"

-- to which you laugh and reply, "No!!! He's adopted!!! I have no real son and need to someone to which I can pass off the fruits of my labour when I die."

If, Jesus, the man from heaven, was "Son of God" on that basis, then I would take that to mean that he inherits a lot from God. In coming to our world he wants to share his inheritance with us. Also, could "Son of Man" not mean "he inherits the earth" by becoming brothers of earthly men and women? ie. We become God's people by becoming Jesus' brother?

As I said, literature is open to interpretation. Literature can mean a hundred different things, but there was only one intended meaning: what the authors actually meant. The three-in-one God concept with co-equal persons is only most accurate as long as we can't find a better, more accurate concept of what the terminology of Father, Son and Holy Spirit meant. It may perhaps do for now. It's a temporary solution to the fact that we can't remember what the early Christians believed. When that happens, we must be ready to discard so-called temporary rationalisations.

This reminded me of a time at church when we were having a discussion about reading the Bible and what to do if we don't understand what we're reading, and my priest put it this way from a text we were reading that sometimes "what the mind doesn't understand, the heart will".

The New Testament never said that those who don't believe in the Trinity were heretics. We declare such people as enemies because we have a fear of the unknown. People who discard the Trinity embrace something unknown to us, so we are terribly afraid of them, as people who embrace the unknown may just as well embrace anything. We feel safer with concepts that we know and understand and have an aversion to concepts that are foreign. So we call them heretics. We live in cultures that implicitly encourage conformity.

This is an isolationist attitude that exists in most Christian groups around the world and it has torn us to shreds.

I would instead encourage my fellow Christians here to embrace danger everywhere you go. Facing one's dragons and demons is better than cowering in the basement. You gotta go out there, see the world and explore the dangers!!! Grrrr!!!!!