If Jesus is separate from G-d, how is that monotheism?

[Desert Snake]

Why not? Jesus doesn't have to be a god in his own right to bridge the gap between man and God. Neither do clerics in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches and they get along just fine.

That only works if Jesus is not deific, or He is recognized as another deity. This is in the context of the OP; I have all sorts of beliefs, I get along just fine as well.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That only works if Jesus is not deific, or He is recognized as another deity. This is in the context of the OP; I have all sorts of beliefs, I get along just fine as well.

Could you please explain? Why does Jesus bridging the gap between man and God only work if he is either God or another god? Or am I reading that wrong?

 

[Desert Snake]

Could you please explain? Why does Jesus bridging the gap between man and God only work if he is either God or another god? Or am I reading that wrong?

If you notice, in that diagram posted, Jesus is the same as G-d. So, if people say that Jesus is bridging the gap between man and G-d, how does that make sense? Jesus is bridging the gap to Himself? If someone says, that Jesus is bridging the gap between man and the ''father'', then who and why is this ''father'' different from G-d?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If you notice, in that diagram posted, Jesus is the same as G-d. So, if people say that Jesus is bridging the gap between man and G-d, how does that make sense? Jesus is bridging the gap to Himself? If someone says, that Jesus is bridging the gap between man and the ''father'', then who and why is this ''father'' different from G-d?

Ohhhh. Right, of course. I think they'd be saying that God is the "father" in this case. If Jesus were God then that would make the atonement completely redundant as it would lead to the inevitable question of "Why does an all-powerful deity need to go through a precisely ordered event before he can forgive us of sin?"

 

[metis]

Ohhhh. Right, of course. I think they'd be saying that God is the "father" in this case. If Jesus were God then that would make the atonement completely redundant as it would lead to the inevitable question of "Why does an all-powerful deity need to go through a precisely ordered event before he can forgive us of sin?"

And it begs the question which aspect of Jesus' "sacrifice" forgives sins: the human aspect or the divine aspect? If it's the human aspect, that doesn't work because human sacrifices are forbidden in Judaism; and if it's the divine aspect, how can God be sacrificed for God?

Instead, I would submit it only makes sense as a symbolic theological construct.

 

[rusra02]

So, it isn't monotheism; what you are describing means a demi-god?

Again, Jehovah is the only true God. Although called "gods" because of great power or authority, these entitie are not to be worshipped. and of course, there are many false gods.(1 Corinthians 8:5,6)

 

[raph]

From what I understand of the Trinity, questions like this thread are wrong. Trinity is 1 God, 3 Persons = Monotheism. It is not logical and it never claims to be. God is not logical, so you cant ask logical questions like "1=3?", regarding the Trinity.

But I don't think, that the Trinity is a good concept. I mean, it was created to explain the NT, so that humans can understand Jesus, Holy Spirit & the Father. The problem is, that even with the concept of Trinity, noone understands Jesus, Holy Spirit & The Father. It doesn't solve the first problem in my opinion. People couldn't understand why Jesus is God and not God, and they created a concept, and now they can't understand why 1=3. Humanity didn't gain anything through that concept, the questions still exist. If the trinity were clearly taught in the Bible, we should accept it, even though it is not logical. But the trinity is not found in the Bible. The Bible has passages, that made us invent the trinity. As Bible believers, we should not see the trinity as absolute truth, because humans invented it out of the data in the Bible. Maybe a better concept can be invented?

One possible explanation why Jesus is God and not God is this:

Jesus is the image of the God. God's attributes are manifest in Jesus, a human can't get possibly more similar to the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15) That is why, for us humans, Jesus is God, or God on earth or the image of God or God in flesh. We can say "when we see Jesus, we see God" (That is the closest, we can come to knowing God) From God's perspective Jesus is still a created thing and not God. Because He only manifests God's attributes into the created world, without being God in essence.

That also explains, why the Bible emphasizes Jesus=God and the Quran emphasizes Jesus != God.
The Bible is written from human perspective, for us Jesus is God.
Quran is written from God's perspective, for Him Jesus is not God.

And it begs the question which aspect of Jesus' "sacrifice" forgives sins: the human aspect or the divine aspect? If it's the human aspect, that doesn't work because human sacrifices are forbidden in Judaism; and if it's the divine aspect, how can God be sacrificed for God?

Instead, I would submit it only makes sense as a symbolic theological construct.

Yes, I think so too. The reasoning behind this, is that the Bible says "punishment for sin is death". So in the christians view, God would not be just, and He would not follow his own law, if He forgave our sins. The sins would be unpunished, therefore God wouldn't be just.
So christians say, that Jesus, being perfect, had the ability, to fullfill this verse "punishment of sin is death" for all humanity. The sins are punished, and God can forgive us while being just.

The problem from my perspective, is that it is not real justice. Suppose the judge killes himself, instead of punishing the murderer. The law "punishment for murder is death" would be fullfilled, but I would not call that justice. Justice can only be applied to the sinner. Punishing someone else is not justice.

I understand that verse "Jesus died for our sins" a little bit different.

Jesus wanted to save humanity from sin, by his message, spirit or whatever. In order to fullfill his mission, he needed to die. He would not have been killed, if he didn't fullfill his mission. They would not have killed him, if he hadn't proclaimed his message. So he did, whatever he had to do in order to free us from sin, he died doing that, therefore he died for our sins.

That was an act of love. He had shown so much love for us. Regarding his life, we have to love him. And in love, we are all justified. A person in love can't sin. We are saved, because Jesus has shown us perfect love, therefore we must love him and be freed from sin.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Here's the best explanation I've come across, but really doesn't clear it up at all.

​

Doesn't it rather suspiciously resemble a diagram of the female reproductive system? If you fill in the circles with the appropriate anatomical items, it's all internally consistent.

IMO, the trinity is one of those things that was concocted without thinking it through, but put into place because it sounded good.

Isn't it simply a relic from those good old days when the scriptures were handily encoded, the laity conveniently illiterate, and anyone with a surfeit of doctrinal challenges could simply be burned to death in an act of pious sanctification?

.
.
.

Repeat after me: Having your theological cake and eating it is (not) the same as having your theological cake and eating it.

And when in doubt, declare it a mystery:

"If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called (vera et proprie dicta mysteria), but that through reason rightly developed (per rationem rite excultam) all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema" (Sess. III, Canons, 4. De fide et Ratione, 1). This teaching is clearly explained in Scripture.

Quite literally: No one is claiming that any of this needs to make sense. And anyone who does so is the enemy.

 

[the700clowns]

Think of God as a family name like Jones. If there was only one Jones family in the whole world you could say there is only one Jones but that one Jones might have several members. Well there is only one God family and that family has more than one member. Jesus is God because He is part of that God family but He is not the whole family. Jesus is not the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit but Heis God. Some people use the word God to mean the Father and that causes confusion because the Father is only one part of the God family.

john 17:3 "that they may know thee, the only true Jones.

 

[paarsurrey]

Constantly on the forums, people are telling me that Jesus isn't G-d.

Okay, if that is the case, how is that version of Xianity, monotheism? Is Jesus a demi-god? Another deity?

It is wrong notion that Jesus was G-d. Jesus was in the image of G-d like other prophets i.e., Buddha, Krishna,Zoroaster,Moses, Socrates, Muhammad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

Ohhhh. Right, of course. I think they'd be saying that God is the "father" in this case. If Jesus were God then that would make the atonement completely redundant as it would lead to the inevitable question of "Why does an all-powerful deity need to go through a precisely ordered event before he can forgive us of sin?"

Yes, could be. And that is another common Xian concept that I don't take the standard church line with, either. The ''sacrifice'' is not like the temple sacrifices, how does that even make sense. That would make the ''father'', some sort of bizarre Entity. Perhaps when the Bible was being formalized into belief, there was misinterpretation, however, it is pretty off, in much of standard/common perception, so choosing what to argue about is half the problem.
Seems as if this monotheism problem is glossed over as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is wrong notion that Jesus was G-d. Jesus was in the image of G-d like other prophets i.e., Buddha, Krishna,Zoroaster,Moses, Socrates, Muhammad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.

Regards

That seems to be more in line with standard Christian teaching. However, since you are simply stating this, with no real backup, or argument, it isn't really an argument. It's just a stated belief.

 

[paarsurrey]

That seems to be more in line with standard Christian teaching. However, since you are simply stating this, with no real backup, or argument, it isn't really an argument. It's just a stated belief.

Do you want me to quote from the scripture?
Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know. If it is relevant, with the understanding that both arguments can be presented from Scripture, then, if you want to. This thread isn't in Scriptural debates, however.

 

[Muffled]

I do realise that many Christians consider Jesus to be 'God incarnate' , so what are we?

Are we all 'gods' as well .. I think not! Our souls belong to God, and we will return to our Maker .. just like human Jesus, peace be with him. All the propehts are 'like God' compared to the rest of us .. their connection to God is so much greater than ours .. they are like KIngs as their wisdom precedes from Almighty God

I believe, while the Paraclete is resident we are a manifestation of God through our bodies. I believe those who are superstitious seeing the power of God manifested could view us as gods.

I believe this comparison to be incorrect.

I believe prophets have a manifestation of God wheras the Paraclete is a manifestation of God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus himself said his Father is "the only true God." (John 17:3) The Bible calls powerful angels and even men "gods". For example, Satan is called " the god of this world" at 2 Corinthians 4:4. See also John 10:34,35 where wicked judges are called "gods".
But as Jesus said, Jehovah is the "only true God" and ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (Matthew 4:10)

I beleive He also said that He is one with the Father.

 

[Muffled]

I think this is a pretty good analogy, but it does break down from the human perspective because we think of human families made up of separate individuals and it gets confusing when trying to apply human ideas to God. But I agree with the concept you are trying to get across. If God is an eternal "family" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then I think it can be stated and understood that there is only One Singular God, with Beings who all have the same unique essence and God-nature, distinct from any other.

I believe by "beings" you mean the existence of Jesus , the Father and the Paraclete, not that they are separate entities.

 

[rusra02]

I beleive He also said that He is one with the Father.

He did. What do you understand that to mean?

 

[Muffled]

He did. What do you understand that to mean?

I believe that to mean that God is one spirit whether inside or outside the body.

 

[rusra02]

I believe that to mean that God is one spirit whether inside or outside the body.

I believe Jesus explained what he meant. In prayer to God, Jesus asked God concerning his disciples; "Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one."
...so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me." (John 17:11,21) thus God, Jesus, and his faithful disciples would be one in unity of purpose, that of accomplishing God's will.