If you don't believe that Jesus is God, then who is the deity in Genesis?

[Windwalker]

And a wonderful image it is too. As you know I am more than a little wary of lending credence to god concepts, but that doesn't mean that I'm not all too familiar with many. I appreciate how you have artfully explained a difficult image that almost defies description by its very nature. A bit dense, to be sure (good sense, not bad sense, lol), but well worth the distillation process. I guess the best advice is to read it slowly and mull'n'munch as one reads. There's a lot there to take in. This infidel dog liked it.

I stopped well short of where this can really go as that was quite enough as is, if for no other reason to allow me time to process it myself. There's only so much of trying to find words for this I can handle myself. But you do raise a good point. Once you've moved into something like this, you're moving beyond theism and atheism. Those are all just relative points of view of the Ultimate. "Is it this, or that?" The answer is "Yes!". But I do love the ride trying to talk about it.

 

[Windwalker]

Yup.

An analogy is to think of being a human. What is being a human? Is it just to have a bag of flesh, blood, and genetic code in cells? Or is it not also being able to interact, bike, eat, sleep, co-exist with other humans? The act of being human is part of making a bag of genetic code into a human. Just as life, existence, and the universe itself is not just a bag of things, but the activity in there as well, and all things that are in action and being and existing, all of it, is and becomes God.

Exactly. And this goes with what you said later as well. In this sense you can and should say that "God evolves". It's not that the Ground of Being, the Source, the Formless changes, as that requires form to do so. But as what is manifest is not apart from that which is manifesting, what is manifesting is evolving and hence God as Creator "learns" in this sense. How to explain this...

I create music. The Source of that creativity is not apart from me, but within me. But I do not create that Source. I simply access it. How well, how little, how much I do, depends on my openness within myself to that which is within me. The creativity is simply a pool in which I dip my cup and draw from. I don't create creativity, I access it. But when I let it flow through me, I become part of how that creativity is expressed and become part of what is created. It also then comes back and becomes part of me, part of who I am, and part of who I am feeds back into the Source itself in an exchange, and a certain "flow state" of "Love" or Creativity. I become part of God as God becomes part of me. It not just me taking from it "as is" and depositing it somewhere else. I am actively co-creating with it. The key word is exchange. It is an intercouse, through which Life itself manifests in all Creation.

So when I as a participant and co-creator with that creativity am molded and shaped by my own life and experiences, and by the experience of creating itself, I grow, change, and evolve. Then what manifests through me takes on those experiences and they are added to it. How that Creativity becomes expressed takes on greater depth and dimension because of the expanding contexts, the expanded palette of colors in my own life to create from. That then becomes a deeper expression of God, or Creativity in the world through that process of evolution, with me as participant and co-creator. I have a saying that "God desires your creativity". This is what I am meaning by that. I truly believe and experience that.

What defines evolution best is what Alfred North Whitehead refers to as "The creative advance into novelty". This "novelty" is done through us! It is Life itself advancing, finding new and novel ways to create itself again and again in newer forms through a process of change in seeking stability, in order to be able to continually advance itself onward. When people speak of God as having created the universe, I instead see not just some event in the past, but that that event is part of the whole which is constantly being created, moment to moment to moment, advancing ever-onward into "novelty." God cannot help but create!

You with me so far? God is the "creator" in that God is Creativity itself. God creates. Not just "God created". And we who are the created, are also creators, through God. Still with me? We are both created and creators. What we create as creators through this Source of Creation within us, contributes to the whole through what is created through us. What is brought into the world through us, becomes part of others, which then becomes part of what they create, which then feedback into what is created. What is created becomes part of what is being created. In other words, God, Logos, is evolving though its own creation creating itself through evolution in his own image, again and again, in form into evolving form.

Now, admittedly, I'll be able to say that a little better at some point, but hopefully it conveys the general idea. Doubtless I'll swing back around to this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

if for no other reason the finite is not infinite. But when I speak of Christ, or specifically which I prefer, Logos, that is not flesh and blood and finite.

This is the key. Do you think that to be a human, you have to be finite or can god create a human with infinite nature?

How do you define human and, if finite, how does that work if god can do anything?

Another question. Do you see god the father as an entity?

If he is a source and force and not an entity than who is the father?

I will be more detailed a bit later.

 

[Ouroboros]

Exactly. And this goes with what you said later as well. In this sense you can and should say that "God evolves". It's not that the Ground of Being, the Source, the Formless changes, as that requires form to do so. But as what is manifest is not apart from that which is manifesting, what is manifesting is evolving and hence God as Creator "learns" in this sense. How to explain this...

Agree. God was, is, and becomes. That's the alpha and omega principles. First cause and last cause, and every cause in between.

I create music. The Source of that creativity is not apart from me, but within me. But I do not create that Source. I simply access it. How well, how little, how much I do, depends on my openness within myself to that which is within me. The creativity is simply a pool in which I dip my cup and draw from. I don't create creativity, I access it. But when I let it flow through me, I become part of how that creativity is expressed and become part of what is created. It also then comes back and becomes part of me, part of who I am, and part of who I am feeds back into the Source itself in an exchange, and a certain "flow state" of "Love" or Creativity. I become part of God as God becomes part of me. It not just me taking from it "as is" and depositing it somewhere else. I am actively co-creating with it. The key word is exchange. It is an intercouse, through which Life itself manifests in all Creation.

Totally agree.

Also, like the human body. We make our own cells in our body that becomes the body that is us. We create and are created.

So when I as a participant and co-creator with that creativity am molded and shaped by my own life and experiences, and by the experience of creating itself, I grow, change, and evolve. Then what manifests through me takes on those experiences and they are added to it. How that Creativity becomes expressed takes on greater depth and dimension because of the expanding contexts, the expanded palette of colors in my own life to create from. That then becomes a deeper expression of God, or Creativity in the world through that process of evolution, with me as participant and co-creator. I have a saying that "God desires your creativity". This is what I am meaning by that. I truly believe and experience that.

Yup.

What defines evolution best is what Alfred North Whitehead refers to as "The creative advance into novelty". This "novelty" is done through us! It is Life itself advancing, finding new and novel ways to create itself again and again in newer forms through a process of change in seeking stability, in order to be able to continually advance itself onward. When people speak of God as having created the universe, I instead see not just some event in the past, but that that event is part of the whole which is constantly being created, moment to moment to moment, advancing ever-onward into "novelty." God cannot help but create!

Exactly. Creating energy, in a sense. Going back to Heraclitus, he said that the foundational or prime force of nature and reality was "fire". He might have meant fire in a more literal sense, but I consider it more as the creative force, life force, the force to exist.

You with me so far?

Totally. I have no problem to follow you. What you say resonates with my own views.

God is the "creator" in that God is Creativity itself. God creates. Not just "God created". And we who are the created, are also creators, through God. Still with me? We are both created and creators. What we create as creators through this Source of Creation within us, contributes to the whole through what is created through us. What is brought into the world through us, becomes part of others, which then becomes part of what they create, which then feedback into what is created. What is created becomes part of what is being created. In other words, God, Logos, is evolving though its own creation creating itself through evolution in his own image, again and again, in form into evolving form.

Yup. Just like above, the human body is creating the human body by forming what exists into something new.

Now, admittedly, I'll be able to say that a little better at some point, but hopefully it conveys the general idea. Doubtless I'll swing back around to this.

[/quote]
I have no problem with it. So far, everything you said here is 100% what I believe.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is the key. Do you think that to be a human, you have to be finite or can god create a human with infinite nature?

Sorry for butting it, but the infinite consists of the finites. It's a co-existence. The infinite can't be unless there's an infinite of finites.

The way I think of it is analogy is the infinite sequence of natural numbers. It starts with 1, then 2, 3, 4, 5, ... The infinite set of natural numbers only exists if 1 exist, and 2, and 3, and 4, and ... And since there's an infinite number of natural numbers, the infinite set emerges from it. Or did it exist before the numbers existed? Or do they just simply co-exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry for butting it, but the infinite consist of the finites. It's a co-existence. The infinite can't be unless there's an infinite of finites.

The way I think of it is analogy is the infinite sequence of natural numbers. It starts with 1, then 2, 3, 4, 5, ... The infinite set of natural numbers only exists if 1 exist, and 2, and 3, and 4, and ... And since there's an infinite number of natural numbers, the infinite set emerges from it. Or did it exist before the numbers existed? Or do they just simply co-exist?

Numbers dont exist on their own. They can be finite if we decide a cutin point in the English language to make it so. Or realistically, take infinite out because we dont know how far the numbers stretch (how how much is in the universe for us to count). Everything is infinite. Nothing disapears/temp and nothing reapears. We are in constant forming and changing.

Jesus, Christian John Smith, and Christian Jan Doe all have the spirit of god since their baptism. What makes the human Jesus different from human John and Jane is he did not recieve the holy spirit of himself. He has the nature and divinity of his father. John and Jane, to share in that spirit is to be in the nature or crucified in Christ.

This doesnt change that he, jane, and john are finite. We are not. Being infinite does not make us god. Christians go to the father just as christ. They can do the same thing as christ if they have faith.

Christ had full faith and knowledge his father exist. He knew he was his fathers son. This doesnt make him god. Thats not bad. I just find the jesus-as-god is technically incorrect. If it helps people come to god, that i wont debate.

 

[Ouroboros]

Numbers dont exist on their own. They can be finite if we decide a cutin point in the English language to make it so. Or realistically, take infinite out because we dont know how far the numbers stretch (how how much is in the universe for us to count). Everything is infinite. Nothing disapears/temp and nothing reapears. We are in constant forming and changing.

It was an analogy after all. If it was a perfect match to reality, the analogy wouldn't be an analogy.

Jesus, Christian John Smith, and Christian Jan Doe all have the spirit of god since their baptism. What makes the human Jesus different from human John and Jane is he did not recieve the holy spirit of himself. He has the nature and divinity of his father. John and Jane, to share in that spirit is to be in the nature or crucified in Christ.

This doesnt change that he, jane, and john are finite. We are not. Being infinite does not make us god. Christians go to the father just as christ. They can do the same thing as christ if they have faith.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think you're referring back to the original topic of this thread, but I was only talking about a sidetrack, so I have nothing to respond to your comment here.

Christ had full faith and knowledge his father exist. He knew he was his fathers son. This doesnt make him god. Thats not bad. I just find the jesus-as-god is technically incorrect. If it helps people come to god, that i wont debate.

Ok. That's part of the other discussion, and not quite what I think Windwalker and I was talking about.

Carry on.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It was an analogy after all. If it was a perfect match to reality, the analogy wouldn't be an analogy.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think you're referring back to the original topic of this thread, but I was only talking about a sidetrack, so I have nothing to respond to your comment here.


Ok. That's part of the other discussion, and not quite what I think Windwalker and I was talking about.

Carry on.

You kind of caught me off guard and multitasking. If the analogy is true, that finite is a part of infinite, how or did you mean it to relate what windwalker was talking about?

According to your analogy, since numbers go on forever, what part is finite?

Edited

 

[Ouroboros]

You kind of caught me off guard and multitasking. If the analogy is true, that finite is a part of infinite, how or did you mean it to relate what windwalker was talking about?

The relationship between infinite and finite.

According to your analogy, since numbers go on forever, what part is finite?

Each number.

I probably just put my foot in my mouth by intercepting your discussion with Windwalker, so I'm leaving it at that. Sorry for butting in.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The relationship between infinite and finite.


Each number.

I probably just put my foot in my mouth by intercepting your discussion with Windwalker, so I'm leaving it at that. Sorry for butting in.

No. I literally have a hard time understanding concepts i general especially with numbers. If there is another analogy you can use, that would helpful. If you'd like to cut it short, thats okay.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. I literally have a hard time understanding concepts i general especially with numbers. If there is another analogy you can use, that would helpful. If you'd like to cut it short, thats okay.

Don't mind me. I think I'm just derailing your thoughts to what you really wanted to know from Windwalker. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

 

[Desert Snake]

The verses I posted Hebrew 1-14 I believe are for context.

Agreed, those verses are contextual.

Where does it say that Jesus IS the creator of heaven and earth?

Hebrews 1:10

Since the angels are talking about bith god "and" Jesus why woule you assume that because jesus was born, god is no longer the father, jesus is?

Eh? the father is still God. /Godhood

God gave the angels permission to call his son jesus. How does that make jesus god?

Because in the verses presented, Jesus is designated as the creator. Since we know that the 'creator', is ,at least traditionally, thought to be 'God', that would make Jesus God. Unless you believe that the definitions in Genesis, are different, or something.

Jesus and the father share the same attributes. Except jesus is Not the creator, he is not all knowing, and he is not all powerful. There are a lot of scriptures somewhere I posted on RF that says otherwise.

The man Jesus, /if merely a Rabbi fisherman, a 'average' person, could not have pre-existed Adam, so forth. The verses presented, directly contradict your position.

Where did you find the idea that jesus talks more about himself than his father?

Nor sure where you think I stated that. That would not even match my interpretation of Scripture, etc.

Where did you get that one? If jesus is god and the father is only one god, then there are two deities.

Yes, agreed.

My point is because there is only one creator/deity, how can jesus be god without making him a second deity?

Because 'Jesus', in Spirit form, is God //the creator. As exampled by the verses, and His pre-existence, to Adam.

In other words, whats what you are prooving. Im prooving the opposite.

Haven't noticed that. You aren't actually refuting Scripture.

How is it a problem? And because its a scriptural debate, can you address that point in scripture or knowledge of?

It means, some one else's position, is not my responsibility to explain/defend.

No. Iy is not my belief. It was -my experience-. Beliefs fly in the wind. People interpret the bible in thousands of ways. We know ourselves the most. So this is coming from scripture, what I studied, and experienced.

'Belief', in the religious usage, does not mean, 'non-experience', or non-evidenced. 'Belief', is used regardless of evidence for, or lack of,a position. //It's a word used for a position, /adherence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This verse isolated: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:

Says, (from the angels), you, Lord (Father), are beginning did you lay the foundation of the earth. The heavens are works at your hands...and it goes on to where the angels are praising Jesus and are given permission by the father/creator to worship Jesus as they would also the father.

The man Jesus, /if merely a Rabbi fisherman, a 'average' person, could not have pre-existed Adam, so forth. The verses presented, directly contradict your position.

Why would you say "merely" and "average" person? Jesus still shares in his father's divinity. He is still over average and the head guy. The difference is he is 100 percent flesh and has his own spirit that sits at the right hand of his father. God wasn't resurrected to sit at the right hand of himself.

Because 'Jesus', in Spirit form, is God //the creator. As exampled by the verses, and His pre-existence, to Adam.

Every person has a spirit form. Every Christian has the spirit of Jesus. Jesus has the spirit of his father. It makes non of us god. Everyone has our own individual spirit-that is what makes us individuals. The reason Jesus is, scripturally, better than the average human is because he came from god, was baptized by god, and is in union with god 100 percent. No Christian can say they are in union with the father without placing Jesus somewhere in the middle. Jesus didn't need a intermediary. His pre-existence to Adam doesn't make him god.

He is not a mere human, according to scripture. Why would he be a mere human given he isn't god? What is your definition of human? Why would a Christian think Jesus cannot be human and have the divinity of his father?
​

Straightforward questions (some are repeats). This is speaking logically rather than metaphysically.

God is the father and Jesus is the son. If Jesus is the creator, he would also be the father.

1. Are there two fathers? (Father-creator and Jesus-creator)
2. If there is only one, how can Jesus be a creator?
3. If Jesus is the creator, when you refer to the father in the godhead, who or what are you referring to?
4. Is god the father an entity?
5. Since Jesus is human, why would he be "mere" or "average"?
6. What about being a human makes us mere or average to where if god the father created Jesus as human, automatically he becomes like us rather than the son to his father?
7. Since Jesus is human, can you tell the difference between him and other humans or once he is human, he has no worth as a savior to mankind?

Jesus never sinned. That does not make him god. God cannot be in the presence of sin yet Jesus can.

8. How can Jesus, as the creator, be in the presence of sin (if you view humanity as sin or sinful)?

9. If Jesus was the creator, he would not have as on. Scripture says the father does have as son. Who is Jesus' son?

10. Jesus shares his father's divinity. That doesn't make him god. Christians share in Christ's divinity. That doesn't make them Christ. No scripture says Jesus is god. No scripture says Christians are Christ. In both cases, the father refers to Jesus and Christians as children. How can a child be the father of himself?

11. If god the father is an entity and Jesus is not, how are they each other? Once you put flesh on Jesus, he is no longer an entity. Hence, he is no longer god.

12. How do you define god the father if Jesus is the creator?

13. If god the father is part of the godhead, and Jesus is the creator, than the father must be under his son, logically speaking. The creator is above all. If Jesus is the creator, where is the father, what role does he have, and why is he not the creator himself?

14. (Repeat just in case you skimmed over it) Why would you say "merely" and "average" person? Jesus still shares in his father's divinity. He isn't an average or mere human?

15. That, and as a Christian, why do you see people as mere and average?

I have more. I thought it best to put my comments in questions so they are blunt. If you don't want to answer any of them or one or two, it will be hard for me to understand your position because I am going out on the limb to understand yours but I would hope you'd be open enough to look in my shoes as well and understand mine.

Leads to a better discussion rather than debate

 

[Desert Snake]

This verse isolated: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:

Says, (from the angels), you, Lord (Father), are beginning did you lay the foundation of the earth. The heavens are works at your hands...and it goes on to where the angels are praising Jesus and are given permission by the father/creator to worship Jesus as they would also the father.

If Jesus is another entity, as you propose, then, how can the angels, /or whoever,,, worship Jesus as they would also the father? You have just introduced polytheism to your theory.

Why would you say "merely" and "average" person? Jesus still shares in his father's divinity. He is still over average and the head guy. The difference is he is 100 percent flesh and has his own spirit that sits at the right hand of his father. God wasn't resurrected to sit at the right hand of himself.

Great, so another entity, that has divinity. Don't you hold the position that the father has no form? Wouldn't be next to Jesus, really.

Every person has a spirit form. Every Christian has the spirit of Jesus. Jesus has the spirit of his father. It makes non of us god. Everyone has our own individual spirit-that is what makes us individuals. The reason Jesus is, scripturally, better than the average human is because he came from god, was baptized by god, and is in union with god 100 percent. No Christian can say they are in union with the father without placing Jesus somewhere in the middle. Jesus didn't need a intermediary. His pre-existence to Adam doesn't make him god.

'Came from G-d'? Don't you mean, is ''half'' deity? /human mother? Do you think He is a demi-god?

He is not a mere human, according to scripture. Why would he be a mere human given he isn't god? What is your definition of human? Why would a Christian think Jesus cannot be human and have the divinity of his father?

What do you mean 'human and have the divinity of his father'? What does that mean to you. Do you think that Jesus is a 'prophet', /he isn't, but that's another argument/, who is just higher than other Rabbi fishermen? We need explanations for what you mean by these statements.
​

Straightforward questions (some are repeats). This is speaking logically rather than metaphysically.

Ok, great.

God is the father and Jesus is the son. If Jesus is the creator, he would also be the father.

Pretty much. Didn't you state that Jesus 'shares in the divinity of the father'? Are you now stating that He doesn't?

1. Are there two fathers? (Father-creator and Jesus-creator)

Sure, in a manner of speaking.

2. If there is only one, how can Jesus be a creator?

Because ''Jesus'', is God. He is an aspect of God.

3. If Jesus is the creator, when you refer to the father in the godhead, who or what are you referring to?

'God', Godhood, any title pertaining to

4. Is god the father an entity?

Yes.

5. Since Jesus is human, why would he be "mere" or "average"?

Jesus in spirit form isn't ''human''. As you are delineating a definition between human and deity. That's fine. It's better for practical purposes.

6. What about being a human makes us mere or average to where if god the father created Jesus as human, automatically he becomes like us rather than the son to his father?

Again, Jesus is 'half' human, right? You aren't presenting a position, so I'm not sure what you mean by the statements.

7. Since Jesus is human, can you tell the difference between him and other humans or once he is human, he has no worth as a savior to mankind?

The human thing again. No, if He is all ''human'', that's a bizarre imitation of a temple sacrifice, it has no inherent value. That is why it would not be considered legit/ or even happening in that manner,, to anyone who was in that religious paradigm.

Jesus never sinned. That does not make him god. God cannot be in the presence of sin yet Jesus can.

I didn't make the statement that 'Jesus never sinned, therefore He is G-d'.

8. How can Jesus, as the creator, be in the presence of sin (if you view humanity as sin or sinful)?

I think that you are misinterpreting what 'can't be in the presence of', means.

9. If Jesus was the creator, he would not have as on. Scripture says the father does have as son. Who is Jesus' son?

Himself/ incarnation. //man form Jesus

10. Jesus shares his father's divinity. That doesn't make him god. Christians share in Christ's divinity. That doesn't make them Christ.

No scripture says Jesus is god.

Actually, Scripture does say and infer that. Your interpretation does not allow you to read it in that manner.

No scripture says Christians are Christ. In both cases, the father refers to Jesus and Christians as children. How can a child be the father of himself?

Verses? Verses pertaining to what Scripture states about ''Christians''.
Because it's an incarnation/ the man form. //Scripturally.

11. If god the father is an entity and Jesus is not, how are they each other? Once you put flesh on Jesus, he is no longer an entity. Hence, he is no longer god.

Your version has Him as demi-god? Or a deified human? Who is worshipping a Rabbi fisherman, so forth, Jesus? I'm not.

12. How do you define god the father if Jesus is the creator?

any word describing God, the titles, //names basically. It doesn't matter since I'm only referring to one deity, anyway.

13. If god the father is part of the godhead, and Jesus is the creator, than the father must be under his son, logically speaking. The creator is above all. If Jesus is the creator, where is the father, what role does he have, and why is he not the creator himself?

The 'father', is merely another aspect of the Godhood. It's just descriptive, it doesn't mean that it is another entity.

14. (Repeat just in case you skimmed over it) Why would you say "merely" and "average" person? Jesus still shares in his father's divinity. He isn't an average or mere human?

Rabbi fishermen aren't 'G-d'. If the angels were worshipping a man, it's polytheism, even a 'deified' man. Again, we need more clarification on what you mean by the labels. You need to explain what ''shares in his fathers divinity', means, in a practical sense.

15. That, and as a Christian, why do you see people as mere and average?

I'm not a Christian. 'human' is how we /should be / delineating between Deity //gods, and people. If you aren't making that distinction, then you need to clarify your words/labels, so we know what you mean.

I have more. I thought it best to put my comments in questions so they are blunt. If you don't want to answer any of them or one or two, it will be hard for me to understand your position because I am going out on the limb to understand yours but I would hope you'd be open enough to look in my shoes as well and understand mine.

Not a problem.

Leads to a better discussion rather than debate

Agreed,

 

[Windwalker]

This is the key. Do you think that to be a human, you have to be finite or can god create a human with infinite nature?

Oh yes, I believe we as humans have an infinite nature, just as all things do. So you understand when I mentioned the distinction between speaking of Jesus as human and speaking of Christ as infinite, I am simply speaking of which aspect of our being as humans I am referring to. Obviously our bodies are not infinite and eternal. Jesus the human died. The Spirit "within" doesn't. Spirit exists beyond, during, and before we were formed as a human.

How do you define human and, if finite, how does that work if god can do anything?

I don't understand the question. Humans are a species of animal on this planet, we once were not, we became, and at some point we will all be gone. What does this have to do with "God can do anything"? Do I believe the Spirit of God is in humans? Yes, certainly. Do I believe our bodies will be magically made eternal? No, not at all. Why would we want them to be!

Another question. Do you see god the father as an entity?

I really dislike that term "entity", almost with a passion. The reason I do is because for 99.995% of the people who speak of God as an "entity" they imagine some sort of being in the way we see ourselves as a being. It makes God "a being". And as such God becomes outside of us as we see another person. This is far too anthropomorphic for my tastes. It makes God external to us, and us external to God. It creates a false impression that reinforces our separateness.

I'll put it another way, God does not "have" existence. God is Existence. God does not "have" love. God is Love. God does not "have" truth. God is Truth. Entities, or beings, have or possess qualities or attributes. God is not a being. God is Being. To speak of God as "an entity" creates a highly restricted and limited perception of God as being like some other person you might meet, rather than being the Eternal itself. That view is all good and fine for a child trying to perceive the universe from their minds as a child, but not so much so for an adult who is awakening to themselves and Reality.

If he is a source and force and not an entity than who is the father?

I'm not sure I used the word "force", as that too can suggest some things I may not want to say (if I did, then hold that very loosely, very metaphorically). First, I want to correct your repeating of what I said. I did not say "A source". I said Source, singular with a capital S. That is very different than "a source". "A source" suggests something very, very different than what I am saying here.

Who is the Father then? Ok, Carlita, here we go deep down that rabbit hole again, and so early in the morning for me! I've barely had one cup of tea. Okay, let's give it a shot and see where it takes me.

Hmmm.... A visualization. Yes, that works. Yes. When we speak of God as "Father", it is the same thing as saying "Source", or "Ground of Being". "Father" expresses culturally (inherited from Patriarchal societies that is, to be clear), the source of who we are as a people, and by extension down to who we are as an individual. In Matriarchal societies, God is spoken of as the Great Mother, which is just as valid. "The Father of us all", "The Mother of us all". Patrilineal and Matrilineal.

Father or Mother spoken of when visualizing and speaking of the Infinite One also gives a certain masculine or feminine aspect of our own experience of our humanness projected upon the Infinite as a Face we can relate to. God is both Father and Mother, masculine and feminine, strength and nurture, depending which face we are choosing for whichever reason to see and relate ourselves to the Absolute. Through our spiritual, psychological, and emotional selves, we relate ourselves to God. We may also speak of God as "it", which I tend to do myself in writing about God. None of these of course are meant to be definitions of what God is. Simply faces.

Any words that we adopt to use are reflections of us as humans. We bridge the gap between the known and the Unknown using language and symbols. We reach out to the Infinite using the familiar and transcending it through our reaching, or "faith". The Father is an archetypal symbol of the Absolute. We touch the Infinite by touching these archetypal forms. In this sense of the word only, is the Father "an entity". This is important to understand. That "entity", that "being" part of it is part of it being an image of the divine. We bow "before" God in our hearts and minds, and we do so by visualizing God as this figure before us. It is a symbolic Face we put upon the Infinite in order for us to move from within ourselves, into the Infinite, into God itself.

God is beyond any of these images of God we hold in our mind, these "visualizations", which is what they in reality are. To make our idea of God, God itself, is to limit God to an image of ourselves. That last sentence is key here. As Thomas Merton expressed this, "So much depends on our idea of God! Yet, no idea of Him, however pure and perfect, is adequate to express Him as He really is. Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." I couldn't agree more with him! If we hold these visualizations about God as reflections of our own yearnings for the Eternal in us, we must do so cautiously! We must not literalize these images of God we hold, as God itself is. To truly open to God, we have to allow what we think about God, how we want to define God as this or as that, as "Father, Mother, or It", to dissolve before God and allow God to reveal and express 'itself' to us in an unfolding Truth. Again, there is a lot to what I just said in that last sentence.

To speak of God as "an entity" is itself a visualization of something wholly beyond calling it that. If that works for you, that's fine, but I'd advise holding that term loosely in your mind. If you or anyone takes their way of speaking about the Infinite as what the Infinite actually is, then you have put God into a box that you control, rather than allow yourself to open to God. Visualizations are perfectly fine, but when held with the understanding they are in fact our visualizations. They are metaphors. That is key. Metaphors are "as if" statements, not descriptors. "Father" is a metaphor. "Mother" is a metaphor. "Person" is a metaphor. "God" is a metaphor. The reality of what that is is beyond all metaphors.

Does God exist? Yes. Is God my idea of God? Is God your idea of God? Is God any idea of God? Then why get hung up on trying to define God, to put a linguistic boundary around it, other than to limit God to ourselves and our ideas, be they individual or our culture? Turning our symbols of God into God, is to make and limit God to our own selves.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The term, "God, " is not a name, it is a title. Satan is the God of this system of things. Think on this, if Satan can be a God, why can't Jesus hold the title of God?

And why follow a God who lets some tantrum-thrower "take over"?

The man Jesus, /if merely a Rabbi fisherman, a 'average' person, could not have pre-existed Adam, so forth. The verses presented, directly contradict your position.

I dunno, I've heard some theologies that say we are all alive in some way pre-birth, hence "I knew you before you were born."

I don't agree with them, though. It's a lot like saying because I have a script idea, the story already exists.

If Jesus is another entity, as you propose, then, how can the angels, /or whoever,,, worship Jesus as they would also the father? You have just introduced polytheism to your theory.

Psalms admits there was an entire COUNCIL of gods. Judaism, at least before the Exile, was polytheistic and evolved into henotheism. Monotheism was the last iteration before Christianity brought back "extras".

Because ''Jesus'', is God. He is an aspect of God.

Isn't there also Wisdom as an aspect of God? How many gods are we up to now?

No, if He is all ''human'', that's a bizarre imitation of a temple sacrifice, it has no inherent value.

Were the animals formerly sacrificed divine? Who said the dead critter had to be divine in order for it to work?

 

[jonathan180iq]

He never claim he is God , why should you believe ?

John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Yes he did, if you follow the Biblical narrative and don't question things like authorship or motivational context.

 

[Godobeyer]

John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Yes he did, if you follow the Biblical narrative and don't question things like authorship or motivational context.

This not forcely mean he is God.

Still Adam( pbuh) and Noah (pbuh) before Abraham (pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh).

Jesus(pbuh) never said he is God , on contrary he worship his God .

 

[Windwalker]

This not forcely mean he is God.

Still Adam( pbuh) and Noah (pbuh) before Abraham (pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh).

But what if Abraham were to say, "Before Adam was, I AM."? What would you think Abraham was saying there, exactly, when he clearly didn't exist until after Adam? What would he be meaning by such a statement, invoking the well-known title of God "I AM", in the process? Explain.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus, Christian John Smith, and Christian Jan Doe all have the spirit of god since their baptism. What makes the human Jesus different from human John and Jane is he did not recieve the holy spirit of himself. He has the nature and divinity of his father. John and Jane, to share in that spirit is to be in the nature or crucified in Christ.

After you've had time to process my other long post from this morning, what I'm about to say here might make more sense to you. Jesus, or any Christian, or any human for that matter have the Spirit of God since as long as they have existed in a human form. This is not some magic moment that puts Infinity into you, whereas previously Infinity was not in you. To describe a "before and after" conversion scenario is simply a metaphoric device to describe a change in one's own spiritual awakening. It cannot be taken literally. Here's why.

If the Spirit of God is Infinite, then there is no place where it does not exist. It there is any place, or any time where it is not, or was not, then it is not Infinite, but finite. It would be limited to this over here, but not that over there. That is not Infinite. Infinite means without limits, without boundaries, without borders. It is everywhere, at all times, as well as outside time itself! To say one "receives" the Spirit cannot be literally the facts of it. One "receives" it experientially. Whereas before they were not aware, now they are. "I was blind, but now I see". They always had eyes, there always was the world to see, but they their sight was what was not working. It would be like them saying, "There was no world but now there is!". To them, that is true! But not literally true. You follow?

You have to be very careful in taking metaphors and making them descriptors of facts. You end up with some very inconsistent "facts" when you do, such as the Infinite God being in your description a finite being that sometimes is here, and others times is not, like a human walking in and out of a room. Be careful with the language blinding you to what it points to.

TBeing infinite does not make us god.

It most certainly does! There is no such thing as two infinites! There is only Infinity. And if we are that, which we are, then what does that make us....?

Christians go to the father just as christ. They can do the same thing as christ if they have faith.

No, Christians can go to the Father just as Jesus did.

Christ had full faith and knowledge his father exist.

He also had full faith and knowledge that "I and my Father are One". That's the sort of faith we're supposed to have. Knowledge and awareness of our identities in God.

He knew he was his fathers son. This doesnt make him god.

But yet, while acknowledging his humanness, his finiteness, he also recognized his identity as God. "Before Abraham was, I AM." I am finite, and Infinite. I am temporal, and Eternal. Same as what Jesus said. Jesus said he was the Light of the world. He also said those who followed his path are the Light of the world. I am the Light of the world, is a statement of that Eternal nature of who we are all. The difference between Jesus and most people, is that he was aware of himself as such. He knew God. And so should we all, amen.

Thats not bad. I just find the jesus-as-god is technically incorrect.

Yes, this is the problem you run into when you make God a technical definition.