The meaning of Incarnation — to Wil

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Among the issues that separate us, there is one I'd like to discuss, so perhaps we can both get a clearer picture of where the other stands. It came to mind from a reply you'd made to the 'errant priests' thread, and it's this:

... is better than saying... that is part of our collective historic mythology ... as we currently know it, didn't happen that way ...

I am assuming 'collective historic mythology' refers to the reality of miracles, the Eucharist, the Resurrection, etc? Something in the past which we have clashed over ... you say they didn't happen, I say they did ...

My point is this:
If we say that all these 'marvellous', 'miraculous' or 'supernatural' events did not happen, then by what claim does Christianity have any contemporary meaning at all? What happens today? The answer is, and can only be ... nothing.

You have said 'we are all Gods', and that 'Christ is in me' or 'in Him we live and move and have our being' and that Christ is our brother ... but surely, by the terms of your same argument, these too are just metaphorical mythologising, there's no actual reality to what is being said, it's just a poetic way of stating the obvious ... be nice ... ?

I mean, by the same token 'Christ in me' or 'me in Him' doesn't mean any actual or spiritual affinity between the historic personage of Jesus Christ and myself (spirit itself becomes an empty term) ... rather it's just a way of saying we share certain — but by no means all – residual or indeed primitive ethical and moral values.

Likewise, 'in him we live and move and have our being' is, in the same way, actually meaningless, because there is no actual 'Him' for us to live in, move in, or be. He is just a construct, a synonym for the intelligible dimension in universe, an intelligibility which is itself an unforseen and unplanned by-product, a fluke of chance, a construct to make sensation manageable.

The same with the idea of 'brother', or 'way-shower', or whatever term one favours, it's just an association of ideas, nothing more ... it doesn't actually mean anything.

This is why I cannot accept it. Eventually the idea of God is reduced to a construct, a myth, an emptiness upon which we hang ideas ...

... and most significantly, it seems to me, ideas such as 'Christ' or 'God' just become exemplar images of our self-reflection and desires, in the same way a kid hangs a picture of a pop-idol or race-car driver on the wall, because that's what they want to be when they grow up ... there's no more substance to it than that?

If all that is myth, if none of that actually happened, then nothing that Christianity preaches, it seems to me, can actually bring forth any fruit that we can call 'Christian'. It becomes an empty term that is just a useful label, as I have said, for tagging together a number of different societal and personal ideas and ideals.

I mean, why not just dump the myth and stay with the morality ... you don't need Christ to explain or justify the idea of virtue, or charity, or whatever ... ?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste Thomas,

I'd love to be as learned as you. I'd love to have the Catholic upbringing you have. To be honest of all the people I've met who are great metaphyscians many of them were born and raised quite fundamental...that training and education through catechism and bible college gave them a foundation of understanding that has allowed them to back up their words and beliefs eloquently even though they have long since given up the G!d and religion of their youth.

I don't have that background, I am struggling to find scriptures which answer the questions you ask, I struggle to put words to that which I know in my heart, or that which I currently understand. So I've got no biblical raising got no college education....I fly by the seat of my pants and that which resonates with me... at its root I feel it similar with you.

I've got no issues with the eucharist, if you believe that you are drinking the blood of jesus and eating his flesh....and that somehow benefits you...fine....tis a little oogie for me.

As to the miracles...the bible is replete with these eh? But not many discussions of 'yeah, he raised this fellow from the dead, cured this blind man and that leper and we've got them all right here.' We've got these healings, these occurances, but what happened to these folks 10-20-30 years later....you know when the scripture was written. Doesn't that seem a strange omission? And regarding virgin births, miracles, and hyperbole about godmen...why do we think we can decide our scripture are completely factual and all the rest are completely ludicrous?

We are talking 2000 year old documents, which were oral tradition for years and then written down eventually. Hyperbole is common, it is what keeps oral traditions alive and makes stories interesting.

I see a similar hyperbole with our discussions... When I discount something in my beliefs you immediately wish to throw it all away. I don't, I don't wish to 'throw the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water'. And just because something is metaphorical or allegorical doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Like Adam and Eve and G!d walking in the garden....do you buy that? That the omniscient, omnipotent, couldn't find A&E in the garden? Didn't know they discovered their nakedness? Didn't know they ate the apple? Didn't know they would eat the apple? Just because it didn't happen doesn't take away the value of the story.

We got similar issues here in the states. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for instance, he was the voice of civil rights, moved and marched a nation forward....yet he plagerized his doctoral thesis, was a womanizer, but we are building a memorial to him....does the dichotomy detract his accomplishments? It does to some, they focus on that. I choose to acknowledge the issues and move on.

G!d reduced to a construct, because I don't buy that he was as vengeful and psychotic as the old testament authors make him out to be? I think those books were written to try to explain the big questions of life...just as the Gita, the Koran, and creation stories all over....and it always has been convenient to blame someone else for happenings you don't understand... does that really surprise anyone?

I don't believe G!d is reduced to a construct...I believe G!d is principle, G!d is what holds everything together. But I don't believe that 'He' is up there on his laptop keeping track of billions of people and playing heaven/hell roulette in some microsoft database.

But I am confused as to your issues with Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


Other than that....are we going to discuss the meaning of incarnation?

 

[wil]

For me we have this personage....Jesus. Yup a man. Who realized his Christhood. He created his master mind group, the disciples, gathered his following that assisted him in his learning process. Once he grocked this reality of oneness, with all that is, he shared this knowledge with others.

Now to you if one strips away the magic you are left with nothing. To me we are exalted, we get to realize that what he said was true...that we too can attain, if we choose to dedicate and apply ourcellves.

Love thy neighbor, love thy lord thy G!d with all your heart, all your strength, all your mind is a strong order....

I ain't close to the garden...I'm still in the wilderness, and not Jesus's wilderness....Moses's. I've crossed the Jordan, but I am wandering in the desert.

 

[wil]

Hello? Hello? Awful quiet in here...oh my maybe I ought to check the OFC

From Mirriam and Webster

Definition of INCARNATION

1
a (1) : the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form (2) capitalized : the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ b : a concrete or actual form of a quality or concept; especially : a person showing a trait or typical character to a marked degree <she is the incarnation of goodness>

2
: the act of incarnating : the state of being incarnate

3
: a particular physical form or state : version <in another incarnation he might be a first vice-president — Walter Teller> <TV and movie incarnations of the story>

From Glossary Definition: Incarnation

[SIZE=+1]Incarnation[/SIZE]

A central doctrine of the Christian faith which affirms that God took human form in the body of Christ. In other words, God was 'in-carnated' in human flesh. This doctrine is based on the fundamental paradox that because God was incarnated in Christ, Christ was both fully human and fully God at the same time. Of course, there were rival opinions regarding the exact nature of God's incarnation. For example, some claimed that Christ was not fully embodied by the divine (Arianism), while others claimed that he only had a divine nature (Monophysism). The doctrine of incarnation that is now commonly agreed upon - that Christ was both fully human and fully God - was formalized as the "Nicene Creed" in the 4th century in Nicea.
The doctrine of incarnation is particularly relevant for understanding the relationship between time and eternity, as well as the finite and the infinite. For instance, if Christ fully embodied God, then the infinite can be seen as having immanence in the natural world and human experience. In fact, the doctrine of the incarnation expresses the importance of this immanence, because one's life can be transformed in the finite world through knowledge and experience of the eternal in Christ.

In connection to the doctrine of incarnation, modern scholarship of the Gospels has raised questions about the limits of Christ's knowledge, and how such limits might come to bear on the nature of his divinity. In other words, if Christ was not fully God, as his cry from the cross "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" would suggest, then how is Christ's relationship to God changed? Such questions continue to stimulate discussion among theologians, particularly in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Now me....of course I believe that the only begotten is continuosly begotten.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Hello? Hello? Awful quiet in here...oh my maybe I ought to check the OFC

Yes, sorry, but I'm not ignoring you, I just didn't want to end up in my usual 'hand-bagging' response — I am really trying to get to a meaningful exchange of ideas, so please read my silence as honouring your commitment to this discussion by not 'knee-jerking' with a clever response from an armchair theologian, but thinking about what you're saying.

But you've given me a way in ... so I'll take it.

Now me ... of course I believe that the only begotten is continuously begotten.

So do I ... so there's something we share, right from the off! I think then it's how we get to that belief ... that's the next step ...

Big hug and God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Big Hugz right back... Now as the G!d bless part....as I see it G!d is the blessing...

G!d can only do for us, what G!d can do thru us.

And when you say G!d bless, that is the G!d in you coming out.

As when I say the only begotten is continuously begotten....that is the Christ is in each one of us. It is upto us to realize it and let out our Christ nature; our in the image be exposed, and die daily to our earthly ego nature.

Merry Christmas to all, no exceptions.

 

[Amergin]

I am familiar with the incarnation concept but I am not sure what it means. I am not debating any dogma here.

I know that a century or two after the historical notation of the death of Jesus, his nature was debated by those who worshipped him.

If we eliminate the Ebionites, Nazarites, and other Jews, we deal with those who believed in some kind of divinity in Jesus.

There was the Monophysite Christianity which was founded on the belief that Jesus had one nature, divine only. I am not sure if they mean that the physical body of Jesus was just a host to Christ.

Monothelitism was a variant of Orthodox Christianity in which Jesus had two natures (one divine and one human) but one divine-human will. Jesus’ human will was submissive to the divine will of the Christ. The suppression of Jesus' human will to Christ's divine will was voluntary on the part of Jesus.

There was the Nestorian Christianity taught by a Bishop Nestorius. The doctrine was that Jesus had two separate personalities, one divine and the other fully human.

The Orthodox Christianity post Chalcedon, believed that Jesus Christ had only one person with two natures, divine and human. Athanasius claimed that Jesus had a "Hypostatic Union." Jesus had a divine nature that was fully divine with a human nature that was fully human. It is the most difficult to understand.

Roman Catholic dogma (correct me Thomas) teaches that Jesus is a man whose body contains the invisible divine nature. This possibly reflects the early ideas that nature was somehow soiled and inferior. God is not natural. Death of a human is the release of the supernatural soul from the foul body. Is this Gnostic influence?

There was an early form of Christianity taught first by Paul of Tarsus and given its name by Bishop Arius an ascetic presbyter (256-336 AD). Arius, Lucian, and Paul taught a similar view. They postulated that Christ was a created god, son of the High God, and subordinate to God. I am not sure of how Paul, Lucian, and Arius described the nature of Jesus with regard to divinity and humanity. The Orthodox Empire burned all of Arius's books in 328 CE. Arius was granted permission to receive communion in Constantinople. However, he died the night before by poisoning by his opponents. Opponents called his death a "miracle." After his death, Arianism spread across northern Europe outside of the Empire.

My personal view:

The Gospel Stories and the epistles of Paul, clearly indicate that Jesus or the Christ was a subordinate divinity to God the Father. Other gospel accounts show that Jesus admitted not knowing many facts about the world. He did not know the End Times. He said he was not good, only God was good. Jesus was sent to do "God's work" and "God's Will" not his own.

I am a neutral Atheist. However, the Arian view makes more sense, based on the Bible. However, the most rational heresy was the 11th-13th century Albigensianism (Cathars, Bogomils) which rationally explains the evil actions of the Old Testament God, and the goodness of Jesus Christ the Good God who comes to defeat the Old Testament God JHWY-Satan.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

I am familiar with the incarnation concept but I am not sure what it means. I am not debating any dogma here.

OK. Let's stick to the philosophy.

There was the Monophysite Christianity which was founded on the belief that Jesus had one nature, divine only. I am not sure if they mean that the physical body of Jesus was just a host to Christ.

Well it means Jesus is not human, as a thing is according to its nature, if His nature is divine, not human, then He is not human.

Monothelitism was a variant of Orthodox Christianity in which Jesus had two natures (one divine and one human) but one divine-human will. Jesus’ human will was submissive to the divine will of the Christ. The suppression of Jesus' human will to Christ's divine will was voluntary on the part of Jesus.

This also relegates the human, in that the divine will has displaced the human ... again, the humanity of Christ is questionable, or if not the humanity, then certainly the dignity of the person. Without a human will, the person cannot choose to submit, so this tends to see the extinction of the human will, which again undermines the nature. Man is reduced to a puppet.

There was the Nestorian Christianity taught by a Bishop Nestorius. The doctrine was that Jesus had two separate personalities, one divine and the other fully human.

Schizophrenia, or possession ... Of course, the prior term would not be understood, and the idea of 'possession' was not uncommon, as all pagan eros strives for this divine possession.

The Orthodox Christianity post Chalcedon, believed that Jesus Christ had only one person with two natures, divine and human. Athanasius claimed that Jesus had a "Hypostatic Union." Jesus had a divine nature that was fully divine with a human nature that was fully human. It is the most difficult to understand.

If you think of a human person, then human is universal, person is particular ... every person is human, and fully human, that is each and every human is 100% human according to essence, although diverse and distinct and indeed unique according to accidents.

So every human participates in human nature — it's an intrinsic union, if you will. In Christ however, we have a divine nature that unites itself to a human nature, an extrinsic union, without either nature undergoing a intrinsic change.

Roman Catholic dogma (correct me Thomas) teaches that Jesus is a man whose body contains the invisible divine nature.

Well, not his body, but rather the divine nature is united to the human soul as per Chalcedon above.

There was no absolute schism between Orthodox East and Latin West at this time, although there was schism in the East as a result, noticeably the separation of the Egyptian (Coptic) Christians.

However, the Eastern Emperors were trying to dictate doctrine, or at least silence theological discussion ... even to the kidnap, arrest, torture and trial of Pope Martin I and St Maximus the Confessor (himself a native Easterner) in Constantinople. Both men died of the harsh treatment they endured in defence of what was in effect the same faith.

This possibly reflects the early ideas that nature was somehow soiled and inferior. God is not natural. Death of a human is the release of the supernatural soul from the foul body.

This is not and never was Catholic doctrine. Actually Catholic doctrine states that the disembodied soul is not 'fully' human, in that 'human' is the marriage of the material and the spiritual.

Is this Gnostic influence?

Not really. Philosophy had done for capital 'G' gnosticism long ago by then. It's residual Hellenic dualism, more in line with uncorrected Platonism. It's also largely due to poor teaching — and poor preaching — of the authentic Catholic tradition.

There was an early form of Christianity taught first by Paul of Tarsus and given its name by Bishop Arius an ascetic presbyter (256-336 AD).

Er, no ... you've confused your Pauls. The one you refer to is Paul of Samosata in the 3rd century, although Arius' doctrine was based more on his understanding of the works of Origen.

I am a neutral Atheist. However, the Arian view makes more sense, based on the Bible.

Actually it doesn't. You'll be hard put to find any serious scholars that agree with that idea. Paul of Tarsus certainly didn't preach it ... it would have become doctrine if he had?

However, the most rational heresy was the 11th-13th century Albigensianism (Cathars, Bogomils) which rationally explains the evil actions of the Old Testament God, and the goodness of Jesus Christ the Good God who comes to defeat the Old Testament God JHWY-Satan.

The same God that Jesus taught His followers to refer to as 'Father'? I don't think that's rational at all.

And they taught that the flesh and all nature was evil — they were more against sex that the Christians, enforcing celibacy!

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Re:The link of Arianism to the "apostle" Paul

If one reads the New Testament closely one can still see the Arianism in Paul's Epistles and in the 4 Gospels. This is because Arians were the dominant Christians up until the time Constantine imposed the minority Trinitarians as the official Christian Cult of the Empire.

The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: “For us there is one God, the Father, . . . AND there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB)

In 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

“...thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, . . . and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.”—Acts 4:23, 27, 30, RS, Catholic edition.

Others in the First and early Second Century (Matthew, Mark, Lucas, John, and Paul) also viewed Jesus as a secondary or created god subordinate to God.

“As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father,” that is, God. (Matthew 20:23, JB)

“Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” (Luke 22:42)

"Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)

“God [who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death.” (Acts 2:24)

“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32, RS, Catholic edition)

Bishop Arius of Constantinople reversed the decline of Paulism (i.e. Arianism before Arius) by preaching it again. Later it was called Arian Christianity although its source was the Apostle Paul. It survives today as the Jehovah's Witnesses. In the third century a new idea became popular, taught most specifically by Athanasius. They took the Jesus Cults to the extreme, with the introduction of the Trinity. Jesus was raised to a full eternal God (Apotheosis) in contrast to the prevailing view that he was a created god. Jesus was made equal to the Father God Jehovah, and the Zoroastrian Holy Spirit (Spenta Maingu). Athanasianism was the full transition of Jesus-ism to Paganism.

It is likely that Arian Christianity would have triumphed over the Trinitarian version originally centred in North Africa. But politics played a part. Emperor Constantine, a worshipper of Sol Invictus, the Sun God, whose symbol was the solar disc and a cross imposed on it. He saw this in a vision on his way to the Milvian Bridge battle. His Mother, St. Helena, had converted to the Athanasian Trinity Religion which had recently adopted the cross symbol. Constantine needed to unite the fragmenting Roman Empire.

So he called a Synod at Nicaea, where he pressured the gathered Bishops to reject Arian Christianity in favor of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism was legitimized but not Arian Christianity or the Early Cults of Jesus Followers. By the reign of Theodosius I, the Empire launched a major persecution of the Arians, Judaic Jesus Cults, and only then he went after the Pagans, who took a couple of centuries to completely exterminate. They got the name "Pagan" because it means rural, and the last Pagans survived in isolated rural communities. Some survived until the Middle Ages when they were hunted down for witchcraft and Satanism. (False Charges.)

Thomas, I think that if some intelligent and rational person unfamiliar with Jesus and Christianity, would read the Epistles and 4 Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was a subordinate deity to God. Or one might assume that Jesus was not a god at all but a specially gifted human sent by God on a mission.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

Re: New Testament support of Arianism

Thank you Thomas and Merry Christmas, Mate.

Your reply educated me. I am weak in philosophy having had a heavy science and math education.

Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24, JB). That requires that Jesus must be different and separate from God.

Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen “gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:55) Clearly, the writer in Acts saw two separate individuals. There was no holy spirit or Trinity Godhead. That is because the Trinity was borrowed from Paganism more than a century later.

In the account at Revelation 4:8 to 5:7, God is shown seated on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not. He has to approach God to take a scroll from God’s right hand. This shows that in heaven Jesus is not God but is separate from him.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, states: “What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God.”

In the everlasting future in heaven, Jesus will continue to be a separate, subordinate servant of God. The Bible expresses it this way: “After that will come the end, when he [Jesus in heaven] will hand over the kingdom to God the Father . . . Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.”—1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, NJB.

Jesus Never Claimed to Be God

The Bible’s position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that “the head of the Christ is God” in the same way that “the head of every man is the Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28, RS, Catholic edition.

The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: “The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus . . . certainly never believed himself to be God.”

The Bulletin also says of first-century Christians: “When, therefore, they assigned [Jesus] such honorific titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God’s work.”

Thus, even some religious scholars admit that the idea of Jesus’ being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. There, God is always the superior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant.

‘New Testament research has been leading an increasing number of scholars to the conclusion that Jesus certainly never believed himself to be God.’—Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

Jesus told the Jews: “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.”—John 6:38

When Jesus cried out: “My God, my God, why have you deserted me?” he surely did not believe that he himself was God.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

Re: The link of Arianism to the "apostle" Paul

If one reads the New Testament closely one can still see the Arianism in Paul's Epistles and in the 4 Gospels.

Er, no you can't. What you can read is Adoptionism, not Arianism.

The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: “For us there is one God, the Father, . . . AND there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB)

And nor do I, for like Paul, I am a Trinitarian, not an Adoptionist, nor an Arian.

In 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Quite right. Trinitarian theology is a theology of relation, not a theology of substance.

Others in the First and early Second Century (Matthew, Mark, Lucas, John, and Paul) also viewed Jesus as a secondary or created god subordinate to God.

Nope. Even the texts you cite do not say 'secondary' or 'created god' ...

Bishop Arius of Constantinople reversed the decline of Paulism (i.e. Arianism before Arius) by preaching it again.

Arius wasn't a bishop, for one thing, and he wasn't in Constantinople, for another, he was a presbyter in Alexandria ... so like your prior error, in confusing Paul of Tarsus with Paul of Samosata ... I would say you're muddling up your history as well as your theology to make a point.

Thomas, I think that if some intelligent and rational person unfamiliar with Jesus and Christianity, would read the Epistles and 4 Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was a subordinate deity to God. Or one might assume that Jesus was not a god at all but a specially gifted human sent by God on a mission.

Quite possibly. But then that is why the Tradition is as important as the Text — as shown above, you have made significant anachronistic errors of interpretation — errors that in fact history would correct rather than theology ... but the point is, without informed commentary, people will always make mistakes.

Most people will accept that if they read complex texts on time, or linguistic theory, quantum mechanics, theoretical mathematics ... they will allow for the fact that there's probably stuff in the text they just don't get ... but when it comes to Scripture, the number of people who assume they know all there is to know, or their interpretation is correct — just because they can read — is staggering in its naiveté.

The assumption that such texts are 'poor history' or 'poor science' just highlights how little people understand about what the text is, before they even start reading what it says.

The idea that Scripture is self-explanatory is a nonsense, especially when even the Scriptures themselves make the point of saying they're not. And the idea that when reading Scripture one is, in some magical way, preserved from error, equally naive.

You claim a scientific background, yet your arguments rest on purely a subjective interpretation of the data. There are a number of fundamental factual errors in what you say, and you make sweeping pronouncements without a shred of supporting evidential material.

I ask you — if you were writing a précis for a peer-review journal in your own field, would such an essay be acceptable?

I doubt it.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Re: New Testament support of Arianism

Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24, JB). That requires that Jesus must be different and separate from God.

No it doesn't ... for example, another interpretation says the 'Son of God' does not infer a difference or separation in substance, but rather the Son is other than the Father by relation.

I am different and separate from my father, but we are both of the same nature.

Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen “gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:55) Clearly, the writer in Acts saw two separate individuals. There was no holy spirit or Trinity Godhead. That is because the Trinity was borrowed from Paganism more than a century later.

If you read closely however, you'll see the Third Person is in Timothy: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw... "
A teaching which John (cf 14:16) and Paul (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6) asserts, so that's another theory disproved.

I haven't got time, nor do I see any point, in tackling your every item.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Jibrael]

Peace.

I feel depressed reading all this speculative philosophy and complex theology and christology.

We need to go back to the simple and pure faith of Abraham, there is only One God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the Sovereign King and Lord. He alone must be worshiped, don't set up any partners or equals with him.

Jesus the Messiah عليه السلام was only a man and humble servant of God. He preached the people of Israel to worship only one God, like all other prophets that preceded him.

This is the true message of the Messiah. May God guide us all to the Straight Path (Ameen)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Now as the G!d bless part....as I see it G!d is the blessing...

So do I.

G!d can only do for us, what G!d can do thru us.

Really? Not according to Scripture:
Isaiah 55:8-11
For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.[/quote]

I think God can do what God wills ... one should not mistake His generosity or forbearance for frailty or dependence ... but this is by-the-by.

And when you say G!d bless, that is the G!d in you coming out.

Not really. God is not dependent upon me or you. It's a tripartite petition — I am asking Him to bless you — so there's three of us involved. He does the blessing, not me, the petition that He does so is mine, but not the blessing.

As when I say the only begotten is continuously begotten ... that is the Christ is in each one of us.

And my point about Incarnation is, why cannot Christ, as the Logos, the source and creator of all natures, beget Himself as Himself, as well as begetting Himself in others?

We are not Christ, but participate in Christ, we are born again in Him, which we can say as His becoming begotten in us ... but that still puts Him as the source and sustainer of our being.

It is up to us to realize it and let out our Christ nature; our in the image be exposed, and die daily to our earthly ego nature.

But our Christ nature is not 'ours', is it?

It is other than you or I. Itis implanted in us, but it is not us. And the reborn nature, or the nature released by the death of the ego/sin/self-centredness, shapes itself according to the image reflected in the created soul ... His image, as the Logos of all creation.

I would argue that He became incarnate so that we might realise the depth of the Divine Union to which we are called, as sons and daughters by adoption, by Him uniting His nature to ours, without which, we cannot and could not unite our nature to His.

I think if you disallow the Incarnation, then 'Christ' becomes an abstract term in the moral and ethical domain, that's all.

It seems to me you're always looking to make yourself the equal of Christ, the individual equal to the universal, the low equal to the high.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Peace.

I feel depressed reading all this speculative philosophy and complex theology and christology.

We need to go back to the simple and pure faith of Abraham, there is only One God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the Sovereign King and Lord. He alone must be worshiped, don't set up any partners or equals with him.

Jesus the Messiah عليه السلام was only a man and humble servant of God. He preached the people of Israel to worship only one God, like all other prophets that preceded him.

This is the true message of the Messiah. May God guide us all to the Straight Path (Ameen)

Namaste and welcome Jibrael,

It contemplation and discussion depresses you this may not be the place for you to hang out much.

I just don't believe in a G!d who is so needs his ego stroked for his children, his creation to 'worship' him. (of course nor do I believe in any him, his or he)

 

[wil]

It seems to me you're always looking to make yourself the equal of Christ, the individual equal to the universal, the low equal to the high.

God bless,

Thomas

No, I am not equal to Christ. Actually that is wrong, my 'I am' is, but a I stand that is different.

What I am always looking to make is others realize that the Christ potential is in them, the light is in you, just as it is written, just as Paul asks you to do. Die to your old self, put on the mind of Christ, and everything that he had done, you can do and more...

namaskar

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —


So do I.


Really? Not according to Scripture:
Isaiah 55:8-11
For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.

I think God can do what God wills ... one should not mistake His generosity or forbearance for frailty or dependence ... but this is by-the-by.


Not really. God is not dependent upon me or you. It's a tripartite petition — I am asking Him to bless you — so there's three of us involved. He does the blessing, not me, the petition that He does so is mine, but not the blessing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus tells folks it was not he who healed, but by their faith they were healed...that is thru them, thru their faith.

I don't believe G!d 'wills' anything, G!d is. G!d is being. G!d is love.

And not dependent on you or me as we are impermanent in this nature and we are millions....and we are G!ds manifestation on earth....expressing...willing...doing....that is our part...and we are one with the father.

 

[Thomas]

Jesus tells folks it was not he who healed, but by their faith they were healed...that is thru them, thru their faith.

Q: Faith in what?
A: Faith in Him. It was their faith in HIm, not their faith in themselves.

I don't believe G!d 'wills' anything, G!d is. G!d is being. G!d is love.

But we are not being, we are an instance of being, the product of being ... nor are we love, by the ame token.

God alone is what He wills and wills what He is with no prior determination.

Love in God is the cause of being in the first instance, and how being should be, in the second — One must love God first and foremost, and love others because they, like us, are loved by God for all our faults. That's what the Shema Israel states.

And not dependent on you or me as we are impermanent in this nature and we are millions...

So we are not It ... we carry the imprint of It in our nature, but our nature is not It's nature, its nature is eternal, ours is not.

There was a time when we were not, to paraphrase the Arians, but there was never a time when Love was not.

If there was a time when we were not, then we are not God.

... and we are G!ds manifestation on earth ...

But we are not God, because earth, indeed the entire cosmos, is not what God is. It is a created thing. God is neither a creation, nor a thing.

expressing ... willing ... doing ... that is our part...and we are one with the father.

Only when we love. When we do not love, we are not in God.

To love is our part, according to our instruction from God, as revealed in the Abrahamic Tradition. A Deist would say otherwise. So would an agnostic and an atheist. So would a Buddhist. Neither Love nor Compassion is dependent on God in their book.

And Christ is the Personification of that love, by that love choosing to manifest Itself to us as one of us, to show us the way ... because we have lost it: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:4-5.

If we are a manifestation then we are an effect that is caused ... In the Incarnate Son, cause and effect coincide by the union of two natures in one Person. In man they coincide by participation.

Love transcends our being, because our being is His act of love, not our act of self-generation. Love caused creation, and we are created within it, but we did not create love. He did. He is what He causes. We are what He causes.

Again and again it seems to me you are saying that what God is, we are. by nature. I don't think it says that, or implies that, anywhere in the Scriptures.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Again and again it seems to me you are saying that what God is, we are. by nature. I don't think it says that, or implies that, anywhere in the Scriptures.

Thomas

All there is is G!d. Omnipresent....present everywhere.

I don't rely only on what man wrote thousands of years ago, or what some man who was tapped by a council said hundreds of years ago...

....but also my heart.

The kingdom is within, and while I study 'without', I listen to what is within as well.

 

[Thomas]

All there is is G!d. Omnipresent....present everywhere.

Indeed so ... He is present everywhere ... but I am not ... so he is other than I, although I am in Him.

I don't rely only on what man wrote thousands of years ago, or what some man who was tapped by a council said hundreds of years ago...

Why not? Is wisdom only wisdom when it's modern? Is wisdom necessarily out-moded? I think not. Is everything older than today false, then? Is what is said today infallible?

And yet Jesus spoke 2000 years ago ... men wrote it down 2,000 years ago. The Buddha before that — and his words some 400 years after the event. You seem to rely on them?

....but also my heart.

Ah. There lies the rub ... the eye of the heart needs to be opened ... The danger is ever that we read what we want to find, rather than what their voice is trying to tell us.

Here's wise counsel from Antiquity: "Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and shall be filled with their own devices."Proverbs 1:31.

The trick is to set the heart free.

The kingdom is within, and while I study 'without', I listen to what is within as well.

Is not the kingdom without also? Or is it more fireside exaggeration? Or mere abstraction? I am British, the Kingdom of the British Isles is within me, too. I am a Christian, so that kingdom travels with me too ... but I would not say I am all the kingdom is ... nor that the kingdom is what I am.

The same man said 'the kingdom of God is at hand' and 'the kingdom of God is come upon you', so there again, is the distinction between us and the kingdom, which you seem to ignore. Another man said 'the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.'

And Jesus said "You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world." John 8:23.

Someone 2,000 years ago said 'God is love'. You seem to rely on that. Someone else said, more than 2,000 years ago, 'in him we live and move and have our being' (Epiphemides, a Cretan poet, who also said 'all Cretans are liars' and set up a paradox still discussed today).

Could not a man so full of the love of God heal another?

What is what is without informs us of what is within. St Thomas said, many hundreds of years ago, that nothing is in the mind that is not first in the senses. His wisdom still holds true ... Without that, one rewrites history from a subjective viewpoint of the sentiments — and that is what every great tradition calls on us to guard against: humility and detachment is common to them all.

Some say there is a Personal God, and they know it from the heart. Some say there is a God beyond knowing, and they speak from the same place ... and some say there is no God at all, and they are not without heart.

My heart tells me I have to shape myself according to that which I seek, not shape it as a reflection of myself.

My hearts tells me no man should ask another to do what he would not do himself, if he could ... I see no reason to say that, out of love, The Father sent His own Son to do for man what He knew man could not accomplish by Himself ... to bring him home.

Anyway ... that seems to be the difference between us.

God bless,

Thomas