Jesus as God is problematic.

[Greatest I am]

Jesus as God is problematic.

If you believe in the trinity, you would have to explain how in the beginning, Jesus was alive before his mother was even born.
You would also have to contend with the virgin birth.
That concept was around much earlier than Christianity in other religions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr767bZQWFw&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx5EKaY1B8g&feature=related

To believe in it would mean that you would have to breed God, one species, with man, a different species. In modern terms we call this bestiality. Not a good epithet to hang on a God.
It is also problematic to have God use another mans woman. That sound too much like coveting another man’s wife. It also shows a God that needs a human, his own mother in fact, to reproduce himself as Jesus/God.
If Jesus was in the beginning as part of the trinity then we would end up with two Jesus’.
It sounds strange to me that God would also have to use a woman to reproduce himself. That would make his mate his own mother. In modern terms, that is incest.
To think that God would break the rules of bestiality, and incest and create a paradox of living before his mother, would I think, be wrong.
Further, to think that God would have such problems getting man on track that he would have to tweak his perfect creations also shows a God that somehow failed to start us up the right way and we know that this is impossible for God because it would mean that he is incompetent.
We should all believe that God gets things right the first time and every time.
As to the vicarious redemption of Jesus, this was arguably rejected by God as immoral.
Why have you forsaken me, is answered by, it is immoral.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/vicarious_atonement.htm

The last reason I have a problem with Jesus as God is that scripture has him resurrecting and his body living forever in heaven.
This cannot be as he never ate of the tree of life. He then could not be immortal. At least not his human part.
To believe that Jesus is God one also has to buy into the notion that miracles of all kinds are real.
No proof of any miracle exists and I think that if God wanted man to believe in such a thing, he would have left a sample here for us to ponder.

Do you have faith in Jesus?
If so,
Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Do your thing. There are about 50,000 children that starve to death yearly. Time for you to show what faith can do.

Do you have faith in Jesus?

Are miracles real?

Regards
DL

 

[Thomas]

Hi Greatest I am —

Thanks for bringing these points up. They are, as you will see, common misconceptions with regard to Christian doctrine that tend to proliferate once they get established.

They turn on quite technical theological points, but I hope I can simplify the issues enough to offer you some light and clarity on the matter.

If you believe in the trinity, you would have to explain how in the beginning, Jesus was alive before his mother was even born.

This is a common confusing of the divine and the human natures of Jesus Christ.

As the Second Person of the Triune God, Christ is eternally one with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the mutual indwelling that we call 'Perichoresis' (Greek) or Circumincession (Latin). The Trinity stands outside time and space, and is therefore not subject to any temporal condition.

Christ became incarnate at a point in time, at which point the eternal divine nature took the body of a temporal human nature in what we call 'hypostatic union'. Mary gave birth to the man, not the God, and the God took on human form in a body that was delivered by her.

You would also have to contend with the virgin birth. That concept was around much earlier than Christianity in other religions.

That in itself does not add or subtract from the fact of the virgin birth in Christianity. What is more to the point is the implication of virgin birth and its meaning for man in the Christian Tradition. That, I think, is unique.

To believe in it would mean that you would have to breed God, one species, with man, a different species.

No, utterly wrong. As outlined above, this again is a misunderstanding of what is professed in the idea of incarnation. You might want to point out to those who hold this opinion that no religious tradition would define God as a species, so the whole argument collapses on that point.

If Jesus was in the beginning as part of the trinity then we would end up with two Jesus’.

Not if the human is the 'incarnation' of the Divine, that's the point. The terminology explains it all.

Further, to think that God would have such problems getting man on track that he would have to tweak his perfect creations also shows a God that somehow failed to start us up the right way and we know that this is impossible for God because it would mean that he is incompetent.

Sorry, but this is another classic miscomprehension.

The issue turns on whether the idea of 'freedom' is real or a fantasy. If it's a fantasy, then your arguments would apply. If, however, the idea of human freedom is a reality, then it must allow the possibility of error — a man created free, but unable to make choices, or have his choices limited to only the ones the Creator wants him to make, is not really free at all.

We should all believe that God gets things right the first time and every time.

Right according to whom? According to Scripture, God got it right first time, it was man who screwed up.

The last reason I have a problem with Jesus as God is that scripture has him resurrecting and his body living forever in heaven.
This cannot be as he never ate of the tree of life. He then could not be immortal. At least not his human part.

God do not have to eat of the tree of life to be God.

To believe that Jesus is God one also has to buy into the notion that miracles of all kinds are real. No proof of any miracle exists and I think that if God wanted man to believe in such a thing, he would have left a sample here for us to ponder.

Well if you think about it, a miracle is by its very nature beyond proof, for were it not, it would not be a miracle, but something that could be reproduced under lab conditions, which is what I assume you mean by 'proof'.

There is also the point that were God to provide a miracle that was undeniable, then again man's freedom is constrained because only a fool would deny the material evidence of God.

Then again, within the Catholic Tradition, there are over two dozen 'proofs' or arguments for the existence of God that do not depend on miracles.

It is an axiom of my denomination of the Christian Tradition (Roman Catholicism) that man is free and God invites his co-operation, both towards his own salvation, and the fulfilment of what we call 'the Divine plan' (this is restricted, or absent from, some post-Reformation theologies).

Do your thing. There are about 50,000 children that starve to death yearly. Time for you to show what faith can do.

I would suggest the plight of the starving is not a question of faith, nor does it require a miracle to resolve. It's a question of humanity, and our lack of humanity is the reason why it has not been resolved.

Speaking biblically, Cain killed his brother and then said "Am I my brother's keeper?" ... we're still asking the same question today. The answer was te same then as it is now, but that puts an obligation on us.

I think another text says it explicitly:
"For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me ... Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."
Matthew 25:35-36, 40.

Thomas

 

[Greatest I am]

Thomas

You indicate that God gave man freedom of choice.

He offers --do it my way or burn forever.

That is a threat and coercion.

That is not a free choice.

The rest of what you wrote is just useless dogma.

Regards
DL

 

[wil]

He offers --do it my way or burn forever.

First you posit you are against literalism...and then you prove with the above that you believe it?

Just a note as well, if you feel that posts by folks who take the time and effort to create a thoughtful concise reply to your posts are useless, it is highly likely that you will be considered the same around here in short order.

Pendelum swings as the pendelum do...

 

[Greatest I am]

First you posit you are against literalism...and then you prove with the above that you believe it?

Just a note as well, if you feel that posts by folks who take the time and effort to create a thoughtful concise reply to your posts are useless, it is highly likely that you will be considered the same around here in short order.

Pendelum swings as the pendelum do...

If those who just throw dogma at me instead of reasoned discourse do not like my responses then I do not want their attention.

Those who have found God in a book are idol worshipers and I do not like those anyway. They offer nothing new and 3000 year old b S is just that B S.

God is here and now and that is the one I speak of, not some Christian God from a Bible that Constantine bought and paid for as a tool for social manipulation and control.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

 

[Thomas]

If those who just throw dogma at me instead of reasoned discourse do not like my responses then I do not want their attention.

You post a problem, I offer a simple but nevertheless reasoned and reasonable response to the problem, which you then dismiss as BS for no reason whatsoever ... I think on reflection you'll find it is you who is regurgitating 'dogma' (in the worst sense of the term) under the guise of a 'problem' ... and then insulting all and any who do not offer praise for your second-hand 'insights'.

It might help if you post, at the start, that you're not interested in what anyone else has got to say, it would save those like me wasting our time composing 'reasoned' responses.

Thomas

 

[wil]

God is here and now and that is the one I speak of, not some Christian God from a Bible that Constantine bought and paid for as a tool for social manipulation and control.

This is the forum of the G!d of Abraham, one that is contemplated by Jews, Muslims, Christians and more...

If you have some other G!d this may not be the forum for you to discuss your thoughts...as the responses will be from an Abrahamic viewpoint.

If you'd like a wider audience try belief and spirtuality, or new age....

But if you don't want to hear any thought other than your own...try a canyon.

 

[Greatest I am]

You post a problem, I offer a simple but nevertheless reasoned and reasonable response to the problem, which you then dismiss as BS for no reason whatsoever ... I think on reflection you'll find it is you who is regurgitating 'dogma' (in the worst sense of the term) under the guise of a 'problem' ... and then insulting all and any who do not offer praise for your second-hand 'insights'.

It might help if you post, at the start, that you're not interested in what anyone else has got to say, it would save those like me wasting our time composing 'reasoned' responses.

Thomas

I do have an interest but know when someone is just mouthing the same old same old.

I admit that I was a bit short with you. I apologize. I can be a grouchy old SOB.

You wrote,
"This is a common confusing of the divine and the human natures of Jesus Christ."

You saw that I had a problem with a three headed MONOtheistic God and all you did was add another 4th nature to the three. That set my mood right off the bat.

You wrote,
"The Trinity stands outside time and space, and is therefore not subject to any temporal condition."

This you can only know through hearsay or Bible say unless you have had an apotheosis.
I have had such and can tell you that God is here and now in our time and space.
If I thought as you do, then God would be completely irrelevant to us as we would have no access to him. One cannot reason with only hear say.
If I were to try with you on that basis then your out to any reasoning is the usual---but the Bibles says it is true so it must be true.

You wrote,
"Mary gave birth to the man, not the God, and the God took on human form in a body that was delivered by her."

You did not explain why a God would use a method that had been in use by many other religions for about 200o years prior to Christianity.
You have God following an old religious pattern instead of coming up with a novel way and thus showing God with a NEED to us a human host.

"That, I think, is unique."
It is not unique. it is an add on to an old tradition that tries and fails to explain the trinity concept that did not come into play till what, the 1400s. I could be wrong on the date.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am
To believe in it would mean that you would have to breed God, one species, with man, a different species.
No, utterly wrong. As outlined above, this again is a misunderstanding of what is professed in the idea of incarnation. You might want to point out to those who hold this opinion that no religious tradition would define God as a species, so the whole argument collapses on that point.

Is God a homo sapien?
If not then he is another species.
Homo sapien has a clear definition and God is not defined that way.
That makes him a diferent species.

The Jesus/God that he would have produced through Mary would by definition be a chimera.

You wrote
"a man created free, but unable to make choices, or have his choices limited to only the ones the Creator wants him to make, is not really free at all"

I repeat. The freedom of choice that you indicate God gave man is --do it my way or burn forever.
That is a threat and coercion.
That is not a free choice.

If one believes in your God and has two doors in front of him, one leading to God and the other to a hell or death, just the insane will go for hell or death.

One who does not believe and only sees one door by your reckoning would automatically die. that is not justice. He is not rejecting God. He just does not see him so cannot reject what he cannot see.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am
We should all believe that God gets things right the first time and every time.
Right according to whom? According to Scripture, God got it right first time, it was man who screwed up.

Really, then what does this tell you?

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

If God is a good tree then how can he create evil fruit or good fruit that somehow turns bad.

Your whole idea speaks of our fall in genesis.
Eve reached out for the knowledge that formed our moral sense.
Would you stop her and give up your moral sense?

Your take on miracle indicates a belief in such.
Since my last was on genesis, was there a real talking snake?
If so, did it lie to Eve?
Was it under Satan's control?
God seems to say it was an animal and if under Satan's control then why did God punish it?
If it was acting on it's own then where was Satan and why would God punish the crafty snake if it was just following it's God given nature?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

This is the forum of the G!d of Abraham, one that is contemplated by Jews, Muslims, Christians and more...

If you have some other G!d this may not be the forum for you to discuss your thoughts...as the responses will be from an Abrahamic viewpoint.

If you'd like a wider audience try belief and spirtuality, or new age....

But if you don't want to hear any thought other than your own...try a canyon.

To be brief.
Kiss off or contribute to the issue at hand.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Thomas

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

What I find interesting in this article is that we are not and cannot add anything to the original trinity, but then you have Jesus gaining a human nature that IS added to the original trinity.

If the human nature of Jesus came after Mary, could it have been in the original trinity before Mary was born?

Regards
DL

 

[wil]

To be brief.
Kiss off or contribute to the issue at hand.

Regards
DL

Namaste GIa,

You may just be the issue at hand.

....unless you have had an apotheosis.
I have had such and can tell you that God is here and now in our time and space.....

Is God a homo sapien?
If not then he is another species.
Homo sapien has a clear definition and God is not defined that way.
That makes him a diferent species.

...If I thought as you do, then God would be completely irrelevant to us as we would have no access to him...

A different species?

Reptilian?

G!d to me is principle, spirit, love. G!d isn't an entity or critter or being, G!d is being, G!d is love...not a different species.

I don't see the need to be elevated or deified, as I believe in the omnipresence within...and always have access...I can't break the connection...tis just my job to realize it is there...

 

[Greatest I am]

Namaste GIa,

You may just be the issue at hand.
A different species?

Reptilian?

G!d to me is principle, spirit, love. G!d isn't an entity or critter or being, G!d is being, G!d is love...not a different species.

I don't see the need to be elevated or deified, as I believe in the omnipresence within...and always have access...I can't break the connection...tis just my job to realize it is there...

If that is your best then you are outclassed.

You do not want to follow the path that lead me to the Godhead.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

Regards
DL

 

[wil]

If that is your best then you are outclassed.

You do not want to follow the path that lead me to the Godhead.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

Regards
DL

outclassed by which species? Or are you not exploring that one with us?

Sure appears this G!d of yours has one hell of an ego eh?

This way I make sure I only speak with those with at least 1/2 a brain.

I am not as patent as I once was.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

outclassed by which species? Or are you not exploring that one with us?

Sure appears this G!d of yours has one hell of an ego eh?

Yours is the one who says he is the alpha and omega of all attributes. Not mine.

Now that is a big ego. Oops the biggest ego, I shall place no one before him.

Then again, yours is imaginary while mine is real.

Regards
DL

 

[wil]

Yours is the one who says he is the alpha and omega of all attributes. Not mine.

Now that is a big ego. Oops the biggest ego, I shall place no one before him.

Then again, yours is imaginary while mine is real.

Regards
DL

Is there a reason why you are attempting to define my beliefs while instead of answering the question regarding yours?

You said G!d is another species, I'd like to know which species you are referring.

It is an interesting situation to be both outclassed and have everything sound like a primary school playground...come on...are we going to discuss beliefs from our own perspective or play games?

Speaking of games, congrats on your NHL players beating our NHL players for the gold... final score Canada 6, US 7, but who's counting eh?

 

[Thomas]

I do have an interest but know when someone is just mouthing the same old same old.

That's your assumption, and you'll have to deal with that.

The point however, is that it doesn't matter whether it's 'the same old' or 'brand new', what matters is that you've got it wrong.

You saw that I had a problem with a three headed MONOtheistic God and all you did was add another 4th nature to the three. That set my mood right off the bat.

Then that again is your problem, and something you will have to manage. I explained your error, and you didn't see it, and now you've compounded it, by assuming I've added another God to the list, which I haven't.

I have had such and can tell you that God is here and now in our time and space.

Didn't say He wasn't. I think He is, but I think God created time and space, and is not subject to it. Your problem is you've already decided what everyone else is going to say, so you don't hear what's being said — or see what's being written, in this case — all you see is what you expect to see, and you've missed the point of what I said.

If I thought as you do, then God would be completely irrelevant to us as we would have no access to him.
And you would be wrong, because of your presumptions.

One cannot reason with only hear say.

Actually you can. One cannot reason with someone who doesn't listen.

"That, I think, is unique."
It is not unique. it is an add on to an old tradition that tries and fails to explain the trinity concept that did not come into play till what, the 1400s. I could be wrong on the date.

Yes you are, by a long shot. The Triune God was preached from the very beginning; the term 'trinity' was coined by Tertullian (c160-220) to describe something that was already well known and a common Christian teaching. So you're way out.

I really don't know where you're getting your information from, but so far you've been wrong on every point.

Is God a homo sapien?
If not then he is another species.

Only if you believe God is a biological entity.

I repeat. The freedom of choice that you indicate God gave man is --do it my way or burn forever.
That is a threat and coercion.
That is not a free choice.

OK. You stand on a sheer cliff. You have the choice of whether to step forward, or step back. Either way, gravity will come into effect. Step forward, and the result will be, for you, catastrophic. You have a choice ...

Is gravity coercion ... or simply what is?

Try this: God says, "Do this, and we'll get along famously. Do that, and we shall fall out quite badly." Man chooses to do that. Where's the coercion?

If one believes in your God and has two doors in front of him, one leading to God and the other to a hell or death, just the insane will go for hell or death.

I know ... and yet we do, don't we? Like smoking ... speeding on the road ... drink/driving ...

One who does not believe and only sees one door by your reckoning would automatically die. that is not justice. He is not rejecting God. He just does not see him so cannot reject what he cannot see.

Nope. That's more assumption on your part. Of my religion, anyway. Catholics hold that all those of good heart get to God.

If God is a good tree then how can he create evil fruit or good fruit that somehow turns bad.

He didn't.

Your whole idea speaks of our fall in genesis.
Eve reached out for the knowledge that formed our moral sense.

No she didn't. Adam and Eve had moral sense before they ate of the tree, that's obvious from the text.

I could explain the metaphysical symbolism of Genesis for you, but frankly I still think I'd be wasting my time.

Thomas

 

[wil]

We were not speaking of my Godhead we were speaking of bible God not being a homo sapien.

If you want to believe that your god has the same attributes, I guess that that is why this picture might be he.

I found a picture of God.

Now I know what this means.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:26-28
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Regards
DL

Namaste DL,

I removed your picture once today....and again in this post....

Again, why do you insist on telling others what they believe (and be continually wrong as we are not all literalists) and not what you believe?

 

[Quahom1]

Moved the thread to the Christian subforum, as it is an issue that is best delved into by those professing or aspiring to be Christian and/or may consider Jesus as God, to begin with.

v/r

Q

 

[Dogbrain]

Jesus as God is problematic.

You raise a lot of non-issues that are easily dismissed.

If you believe in the trinity, you would have to explain how in the beginning, Jesus was alive before his mother was even born.

Far too easy: Yes, the Son WAS around long before the Theotokos was born. The Incarnation was NOT the creation of the Son, it was the moment at which the Son acquired a human nature IN ADDITION TO His Divine nature.

You would also have to contend with the virgin birth.
That concept was around much earlier than Christianity in other religions.

So what? What you claim is true but it is also irrelevant. The bizarre belief that Christianity must, for no good reason at all, be utterly unlike anything that came before is a disease that seems to be unique to Americans. It was not a traditional doctrine within the Church.

To believe in it would mean that you would have to breed God, one species, with man, a different species.

God has no species. God is not an animal. There was no "breeding"--no sexual contact. You are thinking of God in extremely tiny-minded and limited terms. You are reducing God to another created thing, reducing God to being less than God.

It sounds strange to me that God would also have to use a woman

God did not HAVE TO do it that way. There was nothing at all compulsory about it.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Jesus is Lord