The Divinity of Christ

[Thomas]

]"Jesus" qualifies as a name in the sense of referring to an individual without regards to his role, but "Word of God" is a role, not the intrinsic name of a person. We know his role in Christianity (Word of God), and his historical name (Jesus) but what's his identity? What does he mean to us? I believe that is what is being addressed in Revelation 19:12. The exact meaning of Christ is a mystery. We can only see parts of the concept in the written text, but not the whole thing. It's because of our limited scope of knowledge and understanding as human beings.

It might be worth considering the Gospel of John, specifically the prologue.

'Word' is a Latin translation of 'Logos', and in that sense the Logos of God is neither name nor role, but the Being of God.

Another useful commentary is De Trinitate of St Augustine, Book IX, or Aquinas Summa Theologicae, First Part, questions 27-43. Here are discussed such terms as analogy and the limitations of language generally.

The logic of such arguments often leads one to assume that Jesus is then but a pointer towards an abstract metaphysical principle ... certainly John was insistent that Jesus Christ is the incarnate reality of the paradigmatic principle, not simpy a pointer towards it.

For some, Scripture as the Eternally Spoken Word is 'alive' today as it was in the moment the words left the Lord's lips, and to read Scripture is to dialogue with God — this is called lectio divina — another 'secret' of the Christian Tradition. In light of a significant body of evidence along these lines, I would not be too quick to dispose of Scripture on the basis of a neologism.

As we cannot meet Christ in the flesh today, as it were, we can meet Him in Scripture ... but as much as we know God, there is always more to know, as God is Infinite ...

Thomas

 

[Prober]

Greetings!

Salty - Wow!

Joseph - Yeah, I agree.

Thomas - I thought everyone read the scriptures that way. Do you read that way or think that's wrong?

Many thanks,
Mark

 

[Thomas]

Lectio divina is a taught art ... people are not generally taught to read that way, so far as I know, but many do, probably, instinctively, but I believe it's not quite the same as simply contemplating the words.

Thomas

 

[Prober]

Oh. Didn't know it was an art.

I just pray and ask for G^d to show me what I'm supposed to know. Then it's not just a book. I really believe it takes both parts - the word and the Word.

 

[JosephM]

(snip)

For some, Scripture as the Eternally Spoken Word is 'alive' today as it was in the moment the words left the Lord's lips, and to read Scripture is to dialogue with God — this is called lectio divina — another 'secret' of the Christian Tradition. In light of a significant body of evidence along these lines, I would not be too quick to dispose of Scripture on the basis of a neologism.

With all due respect, it must be a 'secret' as you say because there is indeed to the best of my knowledge, no significant body of scientific evidence that reading words in any Book is the same as 'dialogue with God'. However, I am open to your presentation of that significant body of evidence you reference.

As we cannot meet Christ in the flesh today, as it were, we can meet Him in Scripture ... but as much as we know God, there is always more to know, as God is Infinite ...

Thomas

Christ was clearly a title as referenced in the Bible and in the Greek. Matthew 16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Furthermore, I testify I have personally met Christ while in this flesh today. Now Jesus, I have only read about and from what I read from the record of his life, I believe Jesus indeed manifested the annointing of God or the Christ. Therefore, I would suggest, in my view, your presumption is in error. But then again that is only my view and I see Christ in many people.

Love and Peace,
JM

 

[taijasi]

I testify I have personally met Christ while in this flesh today. Now Jesus, I have only read about and from what I read from the record of his life, I believe Jesus indeed manifested the annointing of God or the Christ. Therefore, I would suggest, in my view, your presumption is in error. But then again that is only my view and I see Christ in many people.

Love and Peace,
JM

I agree with you, JosephM, that it is very possible to meet Christ, in the flesh, through many people today. And by this, I am not suggesting some kind of trite, platitudinous religious sentiment ... or "a thoughtful, idealistic possibility," or anything of the sort. I mean exactly what I say.

This came to me about a month ago, and I wrote a poem about it. I posted it here at CR, if you're interested --> http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/favourite-poems-6328-5.html#post106743

Meanwhile, I also believe we will be perfectly able to encounter Christ, in the sense of one Individual - in that sense of "flesh and blood" ... just as before, in Christ Jesus, most likely in our present lifetime. This might be a couple of decades away, maybe sooner, yet I think it is quite in line with the Biblical Philippians 2:10-11.

As one teacher pointed out, people come and go from "the clouds," descending from "on high" every day. People do this, in fact, by the many thousands. And holy men travel, by car, by bus, by plane and train, just like everybody else ...

cheers,

~andrew

 

[Bruce Michael]

It doesn't make Nestorious right though, does it?

Thomas

Hi Br. Thomas,
Let's lay it out again all simple-like.
The Gospel of Mark was cobbled together:
For example: Mark 16:9-20.

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church.

Common with other scriptural prophecies, this is the line that was originally in Mark's Gospel:

Psalm 2:7

7I will declare the decree: Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; *I* this day have begotten thee.

My first proof was Augustine's dispute with Faustus the Manichean (circa A.D. 400):

Therefore, thou didst generate the Coeternal, to whom
thou didst say, "This day I have begotten thee." Mark 1:9-11

Obviously this was how it read in C400.

This is the reason for the Voice of the Father
spoken over him at his baptism, "Today have I begotten thee,"
which pointed not to that particular day on which he was baptized,
but to that "day" of changeless eternity, in order to show us that
this Man belonged to the personal Unity of the Only Begotten. For
a day that neither begins with the close of yesterday nor ends
with the beginning of tomorrow is indeed an eternal "today."​

Again the correct verse is quoted from the Gospel as it stood at that time.
Please note that Augustine did not attempt to correct this.


Second proof:
The author of Hebrews made it clear:
"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." Hebrews 5:5

The Author quotes it that way!

Third proof:

For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?

-Hebrews 1:5

Where else in the Gospels does God say this? Ipso facto....[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Cordially,
Br.Bruce

And another thing:

v10: The writer of Mark uses the Greek preposition eis (into) while Matthew and Luke use epi (upon) to describe how the Spirit comes to Jesus. Robert Fowler (1996) pointing out that the understanding of the later writers is often read back in Mark, observes:


"...Mark is portraying for us a person being invaded and possessed by a spirit. In Mark, Jesus becomes spirit-possessed."(p16)

Gospel of Mark Chapter 1
Fowler also points out that in Mark the Spirit is not specified as Holy, though Matthew and Luke are careful to make that clear.

[/FONT]

 

[Thomas]

Furthermore, I testify I have personally met Christ while in this flesh today. Now Jesus, I have only read about and from what I read from the record of his life, I believe Jesus indeed manifested the annointing of God or the Christ. Therefore, I would suggest, in my view, your presumption is in error. But then again that is only my view and I see Christ in many people.
Love and Peace,
JM

Hi JM —

You misread me, I was referring to the human Jesus Christ, not ourselves. The encounter with God today is orchestrated by and through the Holy Spirit, who leads to the Son, who leads to the Father.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

The trouble is, if we accept the theory that Jesus is purely human, who was infused with the Spirit at His baptism, then a whole raft of other texts become questionable, in short the theory throws up more questions than it answers, usually a sign that the theory is not quite right.

As ever, the solution to the question is found in context.

Thomas

 

[JosephM]

Hi JM —

You misread me, I was referring to the human Jesus Christ, not ourselves. The encounter with God today is orchestrated by and through the Holy Spirit, who leads to the Son, who leads to the Father.

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I apologize for misreading your post and retract my view for the erroneous presumption on my part.

Love and Peace,
JM

 

[Postmaster]

My argument is, I suppose, if we are directly children of God, then we are God by nature, are we not?

If then we are by nature divine, and I look at the world, the mess we've made of it, and what we do to each other, then the only conclusion can be that such divinity is not worth a light, is it? I mean, do I assume that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Fred West (a local torturer and serial killer) are all divine?

I'm seeking for certitude, not sentiment.

Thomas

How would you consider a natural disaster which kills many innocent people?

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Br.Thomas,,

>The trouble is, if we accept the theory that Jesus is purely human, who was >infused with the Spirit at His baptism, then a whole raft of other texts >become questionable, in short the theory throws up more questions than it >answers, usually a sign that the theory is not quite right.

As I have said, there is good proof that Mark 1:11 is incorrect. You can take it from there.

We still have in our Greek text the Greek preposition eis (into).

Christ the Word, was with the baby Jesus nevertheless- that solves the "raft of other texts".

Another thing I neglected to mention is that Mark ignores the Nativity altogether.

Where does he start:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God).

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 3 "Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way.

A voice of one crying out in the desert: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.'"

John (the) Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Just a few more thoughts.

-Br.Bruce

 

[BlaznFattyz]

'Word' is a Latin translation of 'Logos', and in that sense the Logos of God is neither name nor role, but the Being of God.

word is english for logos, verbo is latin for logos. though one translates to the other, verbo has more meaning when speaking about god in latin languages imo.

 

[Thomas]

word is english for logos, verbo is latin for logos. though one translates to the other, verbo has more meaning when speaking about god in latin languages imo.

Hi BlaznFattyz...

I agree with you absolutely.

As a Neoplatonist I always favoured Logos. As a Christian I have come to feel the Word moreso, and more deeply so. It is Verbum for me, from here on.

Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty.
Dionysius the Areopagite: The Mystical Theology

Logos is the Son, and reveals Himself, and all things, to us, but the Word sounds Himself ... that selfsame Self ... in us, in the depths of our being, issuing out of the 'secret Silence' of the Father.

The Verbum says : Come.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

How would you consider a natural disaster which kills many innocent people?

A natural disaster.

Thomas

 

[BlaznFattyz]

A natural disaster...

that unfortunately killed people.

 

[Bruce Michael]

[FONT=&quot]Greetings Readers,
I think the most powerful statements about the divinity of Christ come from Paul and the author of John's Gospel:

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

​

-Ephesians 3:9

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

​

Colossians 1:14-17

More from
The Deity of Christ
[/FONT]

Sometimes we are told that there is no verse in the New Testament that says "Jesus is God," with the implication that there no straightforward claim to His divinity to be found in its pages. Such, however, is not the case. For instance, in the following passages the deity of Christ is either explicitly asserted or strongly implied. In Titus 2:13, Paul speaks of believers "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." Peter opens his second epistle greeting "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). Luke records Paul's words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 where he reminds them that they are overseers of "the church of God which he purchased with His own blood." Such a statement makes no sense unless we accept the full force of the doctrine of the incarnation: Christ was God in the flesh, therefore we may speak of God shedding His own blood. John testifies to Jesus (whom he calls the Word) in the foreword to his Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). John goes on to say that Jesus, the Word, is "the only begotten from the Father" (John 1:14) and then utters the astounding claim that "no man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (John 1:18). Thus John not only asserts Christ's deity, but also his sole ability to reveal the Father to the world.
It is thus not surprising that Thomas confesses Jesus to be "My Lord and My God" in John 20:28. The author of Hebrews identifies Jesus, the Son as the person about whom the Psalmist (Psalm 45:6) said: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8). James, the brother of our Lord identifies himself as Jesus' "bond-servant" (James 1:1) and refers to His brother as "the glory" in James 2:1, neither of which designations is typical of siblings or reverent Jewish believers, but both of which speak volumes about his perception of
the divine nature of Christ."

[FONT=&quot]
Christian esotericists have been able to go more deeply into this mystery- the works of Rudolf Steiner, Emil Bock, [/FONT]Edouard Schuré,[FONT=&quot] and Valentin Tomberg are very helpful.

-Br.Bruce[/FONT]