C
Composer
Guest
If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Interesting opinion, what do you base it on?
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
i dont think so.. In the christian belief, Jesus the Son, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, are one God, and all three are the creator and true God. There is no God that does any creation without these characteristics.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
all you have picked out are basically passages where the Son of God who lowered and humbled himself from heaven to be put in the world as a man to be sacrificed for our sins. as a man, he had limitations and at times spoke in this context. that isn't to say he wasnt God, but you choose to pick those that reflect his human traits. however, at other times, as the Son of God, he forgave sins as God, raised the dead or breathed life as God, fulfilled prophecies, cured the ill, performed countless miracles, and was resurrected back to the Father from where he came. you just forgot to conveniently leave those parts out since they dont fit your inaccurate argument.
C
Composer
Guest
If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.
&
IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!
100% human means EXACTLY that.
Fully, totally completely 100% human, means just that.
Nothing more, and nothing less!
100% Pure Orange juice is nothing but pure Orange juice.
The very definition of 100% fully human, excludes a god!
If there were something, anything about this Story book jebus that was non-human, it would immediately disqualify it as being 100% human!
trinity remains in tatters!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
ah, composer, I like it!
Or, the divine united to the human, which is what the ancient doctrine declares.
Well in your mind, evidently not. But I think that says more about you than it says about God.
Actually, it doesn't, because God, by definition, transcends the categories by which one determines things like 'oranges', 'humans' and indeed every other thing in creation.
Of course it is, how silly of me. You pop up out of nowhere, shouting the odds about things you evidently don't understand, and 2,000 years of wisdom and insight are disposed of at a stroke, by someone who evidently can't even spell.
C
Composer
Guest
Poor Thomas & his impotent god(s)!
All you & your imaginary god(s) have against me is personal attacks and complain about my spelling!
Much much better luck next times should you all wish to try your luck against me again?
Your vindicated mentor & Saviour, moi!
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
This guy wasn't a lot of fun, what is it exactly that you like Radar? I don't see it.
Oh no ... I have much more against you than that, my dear, be sure of that.
But as the Proverb (29:9) says: "If a wise man argues with a fool ... "You see, there's one thing me and my 'imaginary gods' have in common, and that is we really have no time for hypocrisy. It was the one exception to His 'turn the other cheek' rule. And Lord forgive me, it's my failing, I know, to rise to this silly, so-called challenge, it's all the fault of my gaelic genes.
But rest assured, my little lamb, that while you make great delight in your bleatings, it's just that. There's no substance to it at all, is there, it's just you shouting the odds.
Try my luck? Against you? Good grief, there's nothing there to try my luck against except, from what I've seen so far, an empty vessel.
Put some meat in your broth and I'll sup with you ... until then,
Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
an analogy of sorts, if the son of a rich man was to collect rent on behalf of his dad, the son is not the dad nor is he the owner of the property, but by the father giving all rights, power, and authority to his son, the son can by every right go and collect these rents on behalf of his father who has given him this right. therefore, if God sent his only Son to the world to die for our sins, and to be the saviour of the world and call his son God, then even for a little while when Jesus was a man, he still had the right, power and authority from God because he is God.
Dream
Well-Known Member
Lets see...its been a while since we had this discussion on comparativereligions.com, when I was a not trin person in 2008. I wouldn't say I was anti trin, but definitely of the non trin persuasion. I was passionate. Then I learned that definitions aren't central to Jesus agenda, and then I was more able to appreciate the arguments less passionately.
John 5:25 through John 5:27 sees Jesus refer to himself as Son of God and then as Son of Man, both capitalized in NIV. The first question arising about the definitions is "How he could be Son of Man, if Joseph wasn't his dad?" Its a good question. The next question is "How could he be the Son of God if Mary was his momma?" Another good question. A god with a human mother? A man with God for a father? Both appear contradictory. At that point its best to stop and discuss what it could mean.
John 5:25 through John 5:27 sees Jesus refer to himself as Son of God and then as Son of Man, both capitalized in NIV. The first question arising about the definitions is "How he could be Son of Man, if Joseph wasn't his dad?" Its a good question. The next question is "How could he be the Son of God if Mary was his momma?" Another good question. A god with a human mother? A man with God for a father? Both appear contradictory. At that point its best to stop and discuss what it could mean.
The solution to the contradiction is in the understanding of hypostasis, and specifically hypostatic union.
In the 4th century Apollinaris of Laodicea used the philosophical term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation. He described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence: a single hypostasis.
Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysitism), one human and one divine, and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed.
The word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which means "essence", not "person").
The Chalcedonian Definition agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. It also insisted however that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person (prosopon)and not the nature (ousia) as with Apollinarius.
Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, together united in one single person.
The question of whether or not Christ declared his divinity in Scripture is one that many like to assert, but they then argue from a post modern perspective (if indeed their argument is informed by anything other than opinions).
If one reads the text from a Jewish standpoint, the declarations are there aplenty — His audience tried to stone Him more than once, so that should offer some clue.
Look for the texts where Christ says and does things in His own name, He performs miracles, He forgives sin, He explicitly claims much more than the power of prophecy ... He claims to act with Divine Authority in His own name, something which is inarguable blasphemy if it were not true.
If one reads the text from a Jewish standpoint, the declarations are there aplenty — His audience tried to stone Him more than once, so that should offer some clue.
Look for the texts where Christ says and does things in His own name, He performs miracles, He forgives sin, He explicitly claims much more than the power of prophecy ... He claims to act with Divine Authority in His own name, something which is inarguable blasphemy if it were not true.
Performing miracles....doesn't a saint need to do a few of these to qualify?
Or prayers of the faithful calling in the saints name and receiving a miracle?
Forgiving sin, divine authority...seems others do this.
Jews look at Jesus and have a myriad of reasons why he surely isn't the son of G!d, G!d or the Mesiah they were looking for. They go one at a time thru each and every reason we attribute to him and indicate why not.
Belief, opinion, strong on all sides...
Or prayers of the faithful calling in the saints name and receiving a miracle?
Forgiving sin, divine authority...seems others do this.
Jews look at Jesus and have a myriad of reasons why he surely isn't the son of G!d, G!d or the Mesiah they were looking for. They go one at a time thru each and every reason we attribute to him and indicate why not.
Belief, opinion, strong on all sides...
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I agree with both wil and Thomas. But, the simple fact is that if John 20 is true (and not corrupt), the claim of divinity is pretty strong.
All the above being what it is, I believe Jesus is representative of G!d on earth... many will agree with that. Many won't go as far as believing that we all are.
Jesus realized (both in the physical and intellectual sense) this, first intellectually, then physically by following his own teachings, channeling that divinity within.
what he has done we can do as well...
first we need to accept it, intellectually or in our being...and then we can grow...put the mind of Christ in our mind...WWJD on a real basis...
Jesus realized (both in the physical and intellectual sense) this, first intellectually, then physically by following his own teachings, channeling that divinity within.
what he has done we can do as well...
first we need to accept it, intellectually or in our being...and then we can grow...put the mind of Christ in our mind...WWJD on a real basis...
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
That (I feel) does not invalidate John 20. Have you ever read "putting on the Mind of Christ"? Good read, not saying author is totally right.
The point is, He says Himself that's not the case.
Many believe He's from Sirius ... many believe lots of things they want to believe. It's what He says that's the point, not what we'd like to think He said.
Actually, He says the exact opposite. I don't know where you've picked up this erroneous notion from ...