Respectful question about Jesus (pbuh)

[Muslimwoman]

...but not the "trinity of God"...

How can one not accept both? If it is God we are trying to describe, can He not be more than what we consider Him to be?

Or do we make Him in "our image"?

It is perhaps a matter of how we conceptualise G-d? I believe He could be 10 trillion things at once if He so willed. However, I would not worship those 10 trillion beings as being parts of G-d, I would worship only G-d as the whole.

Do you understand what I mean? It just seems wrong to me to worship aspects of G-d, we should worship G-d as a whole.

 

[Pico]

It is perhaps a matter of how we conceptualise G-d? I believe He could be 10 trillion things at once if He so willed. However, I would not worship those 10 trillion beings as being parts of G-d, I would worship only G-d as the whole.

Do you understand what I mean? It just seems wrong to me to worship aspects of G-d, we should worship G-d as a whole.

Well, worshiping Jesus is not worshiping "parts" of God. It is worshiping God Himself.

Hmmm... never heard of someone worshiping the Holy Spirit

 

[Muslimwoman]

there is without a doubt those that truly love the lord in all religions, and do the best with that piece of the puzzle they have been given. and helping each other out of love find the missing pieces that help us get to know him better is what god intended.

Ameen. Now there is something we can totally agree on Blazn.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Well, worshiping Jesus is not worshiping "parts" of God. It is worshiping God Himself.

What was said Pico is that Jesus sits at the right hand of G-d. That suggests a seperate entity, an aspect of G-d.

 

[Quahom1]

It is perhaps a matter of how we conceptualise G-d? I believe He could be 10 trillion things at once if He so willed. However, I would not worship those 10 trillion beings as being parts of G-d, I would worship only G-d as the whole.

Do you understand what I mean? It just seems wrong to me to worship aspects of G-d, we should worship G-d as a whole.

I think you answered your own question. We can't know the whole of God, since God is infintite and we are finite, so we worship what and who we do understand.
As best as we are able. I see no wrong in that, nor do I think God does...

 

[Muslimwoman]

I think you answered your own question. We can't know the whole of God, since God is infintite and we are finite, so we worship what and who we do understand.
As best as we are able. I see no wrong in that, nor do I think God does...

I can certainly go with you on that one Q.

 

[mee]

Hi Q

I accept that as your belief but that doesn't explain who he was praying to, if as you say he was himself G-d.

Salaam

he was praying to his father who is not Jesus . When Jesus was about to die, he showed subjection to his Father in praying: “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” (Luke 22:42) To whom was Jesus praying? To himself? No, he was praying to his Father in heaven. This is clearly shown by his saying: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” And then, at his death, Jesus cried out: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself? No, he was crying out to his Father who was in heaven.

 

[mee]

What was said Pico is that Jesus sits at the right hand of G-d. That suggests a seperate entity, an aspect of G-d.

Is Jesus Christ actually God?

John 17:3, RS: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God [“who alone art truly God,” NE], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (Notice that Jesus referred not to himself but to his Father in heaven as “the only true God.”)

John 20:17, RS: “Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (So to the resurrected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene. Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find the Father addressing the Son as “my God.”)

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Is Jesus Christ actually God?

Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find the Father addressing the Son as “my God.”)

yes he is the word of god who walked among us as both man and god, and has been glorified back to the father from where he came and sits on the throne of god. interestingly we see that god the father here is calling the son god:

Heb. 1:8 - "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."​

 

[mee]

Heb. 1:8 - "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."​

Hebrews​

​

1:8:​

RS​

reads: "Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’" (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: "But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’" (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression "God, thy God," showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads "Your divine throne." (NE says, "Your throne is like God’s throne." JP [verse 7]: "Thy throne given of God.") Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit "upon Jehovah’s throne." (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the "throne," or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.​

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: "The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’"—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

only god is salvation, only god is life, only god sits on the throne, only god judges... yet we see jesus christ having the same attributes. So God the Father calls Jesus God, and shares his glory with him has God.

Heb. 1:8 - "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."

 

[Azure24]

I don't know what i consider myself anymore... I doubt sometimes if jesus even existed as there are so many interpretations of his life. I once heard about two auto biographies written about a dead person which both contradicted each other. I guess this is frequent... Especially considering all texts about Jesus were written at least a hundred years after he died. We have to consider the bible, Qur'an, Judaism and even new testament apocrypha (remember it was not God who made the bible, it was a group of men who decided what should be cntained in the bible).

 

[LeoSalinas22]

hi azura!

don't know what i consider myself anymore... I doubt sometimes if jesus even existed as there are so many interpretations of his life.

i too as of late have been doubting the Gospels. there are a few things that Christ says in the Gospels that contradict with the old testament writings. and don't get me started with the other new testament writings like acts and the epistles!

We have to consider the bible, Qur'an, Judaism and even new testament apocrypha (remember it was not God who made the bible, it was a group of men who decided what should be cntained in the bible).

you took the words right out of my mouth, my friend!

Deuteronomy 4:29 But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.

if you don't mind my asking, were you of a certain religion before? what are the issues you have now as to why you may doubt Jesus' existence? thanks and peace be upon you...

 

[Pico]

Historical Scholarship backs up the Bible immensely. Every method historians use to judge a historical text's reliability the New Testament has in spades; far, far more than any other ancient document known to man.

I'd recommend this cool book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It'.s written by an atheist skeptic who wanted to know what the facts say about Jesus and the Bible, and then come up with his own conclusion. Being an award-winning legal journalist for the Chicago Tribune, he attacked this task as a legal case in court would be.

 

[johnt]

This is some discussion.

I like the contribution that said something like Jesus is a human manifestation of God and therefore a representation that can be meaningful for human understanding.

Someone else pointed out that we are dealing with something that is beyond human understanding.

Human understanding is framed by human reality.

Our concepts of time limit our understanding. It's likely that we experience time in only one of very very many possible ways.

Our lack of knowledge of what is unique to the individual and what is common to all humans and then what is common to all creation limits the possibilities of our understanding.

We hold unexamined and naive assumptions about our relationship with animals and other forms of life.

From the bottom of this chasm of ignorance we speculate about the nature of God when none of us could even define God in any definite terms.

Of course our curiosity is God given and I believe we have a duty to think for ourselves but when we start arguing a case with quotes from obscure scriptural excerpts I think we stray further and further from any sort of understanding.

As for Jesus; his acts and words as told in the New Testament give us an insight into wisdom. The question of his nature is less important to me.

 

[immortalitylost]

This is some discussion, and I hadn't looked at it before. Still haven't read through all of it, but I tend to agree with you Johnt, some nice thoughts on the subject. And I agree with you even though in agreeing I agree that I am as ignorant as the next human, lol.

Jesus is the personification of God is as I see it. The human manifestation of the consciousness of God, with certain human limitations, including a partial if not total disconnect with God. Jesus is God, partially, or perhaps sometimes fully disconnected from himself because of the physical nature he had taken. Praying is something that humans do to try to close the gap. Jesus was trying to reconnect himself to himself, if you can follow my crazy reasoning, lol.

That's my two cents on the subject!

 

[soleil10]

Hello everyone, may I ask a question about Jesus (pbuh) from a Christian view.I was watching a tv programme called the Islamic Jesus, it was looking at the story of Jesus (pbuh) in the Quran and the similarities and differences with the Bible story.Now forgive me because, as those of you that speak to me regularly know, I have trouble understanding whether Christians see Jesus (pbuh) as G-d Himself or ..... well I really don't know, so shall not try to guess.The programme asked a question that made me stop and think, it was "if Jesus (pbuh) was G-d then who was he praying to?"I would be interested in the Christian answer to this question, as I would love to understand what you believe the relationship between Jesus (pbuh) and G-d was/is. Forgive me if I don't get it quickly as I have struggled with this question all my life.

Instead of typing pages on this question of Jesus being a man, Jesus being the son of God and Jesus being divine. Here is a short youtube video that explain my understanding on your question.
YouTube - brunoklotz's Channel

In some way, my understanding has common points with Islam and also with Christianity

 

[Netti-Netti]

The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.--from John 1:14
God became one of us in order to save us. He "walked a mile in our shoes," so to speak.

It was for our benefit. The Word became Flesh so we could be saved.

Here's another possible view: see the material world as a spiritualized world. The process of incarnation an in fact be seen as the spiritualization of matter.

The dualistic view of matter versus spirit is overcome by the realization that they are in convergence. It is to our benefit to have awareness of that convergence.

Jesus' teaching was intended to raise our awareness. "The Good News," as it were, is that matter (e.g., "the flesh") is sacred. Our failure to recognize that leads to problems (irrational attachments, idolatries, etc.).

 

[seattlegal]

Here's another possible view: see the material world as a spiritualized world. The process of incarnation an in fact be seen as the spiritualization of matter.

The dualistic view of matter versus spirit is overcome by the realization that they are in convergence. It is to our benefit to have awareness of that convergence.

Jesus' teaching was intended to raise our awareness. "The Good News," as it were, is that matter (e.g., "the flesh") is sacred. Our failure to recognize that leads to problems (irrational attachments, idolatries, etc.).

Do you mean that idolatries are based on the belief that Spirit arises from the flesh, rather than flesh arising from the Spirit? (If so, I agree. )

 

[shawn]

Here's another possible view: see the material world as a spiritualized world. The process of incarnation an in fact be seen as the spiritualization of matter.

The dualistic view of matter versus spirit is overcome by the realization that they are in convergence. It is to our benefit to have awareness of that convergence.

Jesus' teaching was intended to raise our awareness. "The Good News," as it were, is that matter (e.g., "the flesh") is sacred. Our failure to recognize that leads to problems (irrational attachments, idolatries, etc.).

I like that point of view

SG:
Do you mean that idolatries are based on the belief that Spirit arises from the flesh, rather than flesh arising from the Spirit? (If so, I agree. )

And this too.