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

[Windwalker]

The same nature means that god's nature Is Jesus and Jesus Is god's. It doesnt mean that their nature is separate. God is the creator: thats what he Is. Jesus shares in that because he is God's son. (Same blood/dna two people-mother and daughter).

Are you talking Jesus here, or the Christ? Jesus is human flesh, the Christ is Eternal Logos. Remember, there are human attributes, and the divine itself. I am speaking primarily of the eternal being of Christ. You cannot have two Gods in this. There is only One.

Once you make Jesus his own deity regardless how its explaines theoretically, you make him another god.

The Trinity does not make Jesus his own deity. I certainly am not in anything that I have said. The Christ is God in manifestation. God manifesting, is Christ. Jesus is the Christ.

Process that last statement for a while and see what you come up with. I too am out of time at the moment.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree that GOD is eternal. I believe the Crist in the form of what we know as the Holy Spirit was formed before the creation of the earth giving it a starting point.

The problem with this is is to say Christ was formed, and if all things were created through Christ, Christ formed himself. Rather than saying Christ was "formed" it is better to say Christ is form. As I said in my last to posts to Carlia, Christ is God manifested, God manifesting. If God manifests, that is Christ.

I believe God eternally manifests. There is no literal timebound beginning and ending of this.

Still out of time here...

 

[popsthebuilder]

The problem with this is is to say Christ was formed, and if all things were created through Christ, Christ formed himself. Rather than saying Christ was "formed" it is better to say Christ is form. As I said in my last to posts to Carlia, Christ is God manifested, God manifesting. If God manifests, that is Christ.

I believe God eternally manifests. There is no literal timebound beginning and ending of this.

Still out of time here...

That is simply not scriptural as it repeatedly states that Christ is begotten of GOD. The son is simply not co eternal because It is begotten.

be·get

bəˈɡet/

verb

literary

past participle: begotten

1.

(typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

"they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"

synonyms:father, sire, have,bring into the world,give life to, bring into being, spawn

"he begat a son"

2.

give rise to; bring about.

"success begets further success"

synonyms:cause, give rise to,lead to, result in,bring about, create,produce, generate,engender, spawn,occasion, bring on,precipitate, prompt,provoke, kindle,trigger, spark off,touch off, stir up,whip up, induce,inspire, promote;

literaryenkindle

"violence begets violence"

Origin



Old English begietan ‘get, obtain by effort’ (see be-, get).

Not synonymous with eternal.


e·ter·nal

əˈtərn(ə)l/

adjective

lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

"the secret of eternal youth"

synonyms:everlasting, never-ending, endless,perpetual, undying,immortal, abiding,permanent, enduring,infinite, boundless,timeless;

amaranthine

"eternal happiness"


It just isn't logical or scriptural to say that Jesus the Christ is utterly eternal as GOD in both directions of time. GOD is outside of time. Christ is too as Christ is now GOD, as they are the same substance. But the Christ was formed making it not technically eternal in the sense of utterly timeless.

Peace

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Im trying to understand the logic you are using. Not debating (my words).

Are you talking Jesus here, or the Christ? Jesus is human flesh, the Christ is Eternal Logos. Remember, there are human attributes, and the divine itself. I am speaking primarily of the eternal being of Christ. You cannot have two Gods in this. There is only One.

Jesus, the person and human, has god/bis father's nature: his divinity. What makea jesus human is flesh and he isnt all knowing and all powerful. He is still a manefestation of god (hence his miracle birth, for example) and he is human.

The Trinity does not make Jesus his own deity. I certainly am not in anything that I have said. The Christ is God in manifestation. God manifesting, is Christ. Jesus is the Christ.

Taking the word trinity out for a min.

Jesus is human with the nature of his father/his divinity/his spirit. He is still human (thats not bad) and he is not god/father.

If you have god/deity the father and god/deity the son, (as christians refer to god as a noun) you have two gods. Its English grammar rather tha spiritual.

If god is a collective noun for the father's attributes, tha sure, jesus is god "and" he is not the father. However, its confusing to say in one sentence, jesus is god but another jesus is not the father. Either he is the father or he is not.

Manifestation, mirror of, image of, representation of does nkt make the manefistation the original person himself.

Process that last statement for a while and see what you come up with. I too am out of time at the moment.

 

[Windwalker]

That is simply not scriptural as it repeatedly states that Christ is begotten of GOD. The son is simply not co eternal because It is begotten.

be·get

bəˈɡet/

verb

literary

past participle: begotten

Metaphor: "a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract."

When you literalize scripture the way you are with highly abstract things like the nature and being of God, you end up with some pretty bizarre ideas that make no sense logically. You are dealing with highly abstract, and highly esoteric things here. When you are, anything you say will be of necessity have to employ metaphor. It is not a literal definition of God. How is that even humanly possible using language?

It just isn't logical or scriptural to say that Jesus the Christ is utterly eternal as GOD in both directions of time. GOD is outside of time. Christ is too as Christ is now GOD, as they are the same substance. But the Christ was formed making it not technically eternal in the sense of utterly timeless.

You're placing a whole contradictory theology one one extremely narrow understanding of the word "begotten" here applied to Divinity. There are plenty of scriptures that make the Christ eternal. If not, and all things are created through the Logos, then how was the Logos created? By another Logos? Christ is the Creator, not a creature. The Logos is the Form of the Formless. Not another being. The Form, the Image of God. So says the scriptures.

So, if Logos is created, then God as Logos created himself as Logos, since Logos is what creates. It's much simpler to simply say that Logos is God creating, manifesting and manifested. It is God manifesting. Not some "being" next to God in rank, or some such anthropomorphizing imaging. So, you have to give the language a little freedom of expression here, rather than trying to literalize metaphors. You do that, and you end of with an image of yourself, not God. We're talking about God here, not a Himalayan Yeti.

 

[Domenic]

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?

 

[YmirGF]

Are you talking Jesus here, or the Christ? Jesus is human flesh, the Christ is Eternal Logos. Remember, there are human attributes, and the divine itself. I am speaking primarily of the eternal being of Christ. You cannot have two Gods in this. There is only One.


The Trinity does not make Jesus his own deity. I certainly am not in anything that I have said. The Christ is God in manifestation. God manifesting, is Christ. Jesus is the Christ.

Process that last statement for a while and see what you come up with. I too am out of time at the moment.

Even as an atheist I can appreciate what you are saying and don't have any problems with your explanation. Works for me. Then again, I'm not your average atheist.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Metaphor: "a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract."

When you literalize scripture the way you are with highly abstract things like the nature and being of God, you end up with some pretty bizarre ideas that make no sense logically. You are dealing with highly abstract, and highly esoteric things here. When you are, anything you say will be of necessity have to employ metaphor. It is not a literal definition of God. How is that even humanly possible using language?


You're placing a whole contradictory theology one one extremely narrow understanding of the word "begotten" here applied to Divinity. There are plenty of scriptures that make the Christ eternal. If not, and all things are created through the Logos, then how was the Logos created? By another Logos? Christ is the Creator, not a creature. The Logos is the Form of the Formless. Not another being. The Form, the Image of God. So says the scriptures.

So, if Logos is created, then God as Logos created himself as Logos, since Logos is what creates. It's much simpler to simply say that Logos is God creating, manifesting and manifested. It is God manifesting. Not some "being" next to God in rank, or some such anthropomorphizing imaging. So, you have to give the language a little freedom of expression here, rather than trying to literalize metaphors. You do that, and you end of with an image of yourself, not God. We're talking about God here, not a Himalayan Yeti.

I'm interpreting anything in a literal sense, I assure you.

I don't care how you define begotten; even the root or origin of the word doesn't even hint at eternal.

All power being given to Christ isn't Christ being co eternal.

Christ setting on the right hand of GOD doesn't make Him the utter complete fullness of GOD in all ways. Many saw the Christ, yet it is repeated in scripture that none can behold the full countenance of GOD. You yourself said we could not comprehend the fullness of GOD, yet you seem to assume that from this fact that the underlying deduction is nonsense.

GOD is honest and GOD's Word is not confusion.

 

[Windwalker]

Im trying to understand the logic you are using. Not debating (my words).

It may take a little while. Just unfocus your eyes a little and like a 3D image on a 2-dimensional surface, a certain holographic image will begin to appear. (I've spent many years pondering such things).

Jesus, the person and human, has god/bis father's nature: his divinity. What makea jesus human is flesh and he isnt all knowing and all powerful. He is still a manefestation of god (hence his miracle birth, for example) and he is human.

To see if I can help lay the basic understanding here. Yes, Jesus as a flesh and blood human like anyone of us is not "God", 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. That is Infinite. So when I speak of eternal in Jesus, that is God. Jesus is both fully human, and fully divine. Are you with that distinction so far?

That Eternal "part" of Jesus is not separate from God. It's not a created anything. It is God manifesting. Think of it in this way. God is the Source of all creation. God itself is not a creation, nor created. It is without form. It is the Formless through which all form arises and manifests. It comes forth from God, from the Formless into form. With this so far? I very much encourage to you process that a little to try to see the picture before you assume anything.

So this Formlessness, this Source which is, for lack of any real ability to speak of it is the Ground 'potential' the unformed. Nothing that is, nothing that exists in form came into being outside of arising from this Source Ground. Now, here it comes. As this Source manifests, creates, this "movement", this "force" (no words capture this), this "activity" is Logos. Logos is God both God manifesting, and being manifested. Two parts here, "manifesting" and "manifested". The Manifesting, is the Manifestation of God. That Manifesting and the manifested is God, seen and known in form. Logos is the form of God. (If you say you understand at this point, I'd question that. ).

So now, when you speak of the attributes of God, "Infinite Love, Grace, Power," etc, those are all manifestations of Source. Those ARE Logos. Logos doesn't "have those", or share in those, or possess those, those ARE Logos itself. When you speak of God's Love, that is Logos. It is not separate from God, but a pure, expression of the Infinite Formless Ocean out of which it arises Infinitely! That, is Logos.

So when John says Logos became flesh...... What this saying is that God's Love become human. But he was human. That Expressing and Expression of God clothed itself in human form and "dwelt among us", as John says. The form of a human of course could bleed and die, but the Eternal cannot for it is ever-manifesting from God into the whole of creation, moment to moment without change. Everything changes that is manifested, but the Manifestor does not.

Ok, I'll pause here. And honestly, that will take some serious processing to begin to apprehend. As I said, try unfocusing your eyes a little and try to let the image emerge here.

I'll address the rest later.

 

[Windwalker]

Even as an atheist I can appreciate what you are saying and don't have any problems with your explanation. Works for me. Then again, I'm not your average atheist.

Oh boy, you'll like the post I just made a second ago then. I've never quite put it into words like that. It even helps me as I try to convey it using words.

 

[Ouroboros]

In
Hebrews 1:10
We encounter the 'father', calling the 'son', /Jesus,, the creator of heavens and earth. Now, we know that the 'creator', in Genesis, is usually thought to be the one God, /the Godhood. If you do not believe that Jesus is God, then how do you square this direct inference?

Jews don't read "Hebrews".

Hebrews is a letter in the New Testament, which makes it not part of the Torah and such. The Old Testament talks about YHWH, El, Elohim, Shaddonai, and such, but not Jesus. There's a Joshua (in Exodus I think?), which, if I remember correctly, means the same thing as Jesus (savior), but he wasn't God. There were also a bunch of anointed prophets and kings (Messiah, anointed by God, I think it means), but none of them were God. Only the New Testament claims that Jesus is God.

 

[YmirGF]

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?

Linguistic Police Alert: God is not just a title, though it can be. It can also be a noun, a proper noun and a name. If you are going to play the linguistic card you have to be transparent otherwise you will only succeed in nullifying the point you were trying to make.

 

[YmirGF]

Even as an atheist I can appreciate what you are saying and don't have any problems with your explanation. Works for me. Then again, I'm not your average atheist.

*shivers in anticipation*
*races off to read*

 

[popsthebuilder]

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?

Indeed Christ can and does hold that title for many. And it is correct, as the spirirt of the Christ was fully of GOD and is back in unity with GOD. The issue is conflating any man with GOD in utter fullness. This is what people get wrong, and this has been the cause of exponential, atrocious error by man. This is the source of the claimed infallibility or the church, and hierarchy, which is obvious, blatant lie.

Being of something doesn't necessarily make you different that that source something, just not the fullness thereof.

I am not in any way refuting that Christ can be considered GOD. I understand the traditional Trinitarian perspective, probably much better than most. But it isn't needed for salvation and seems to cause more harm than good.

Saying an explanation isn't meant to be understood is pretty illogical, making said explanation pointless.
In fact; it seems the whole point of the Trinitarian view seems to be to confuse and disconnect people from the truth and singularity of the One Creator GOD.

Blessed is the name of Christ, the savior and way towards GOD for all.

Peace

 

[Windwalker]

Linguistic Police Alert: God is not just a title, though it can be. It can also be a noun, a proper noun and a name.
.

I think I'd add a verb to that list too. "Being". The act of "Be". God is Being itself, not "a being". As even Paul quoting the Greeks says, "In him we live and move and have our being". We have our being in God's Being. That, is "Being and Becoming".

 

[Windwalker]

*shivers in anticipation*
*races off to read*

To help give an accessible handle to you on what I posted, think of it in terms of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. God without qualities, and God with qualities. It's not two Brahmans...

 

[Ouroboros]

I think I'd add a verb to that list too. "Being". The act of "Be". God is Being itself, not "a being". As even Paul quoting the Greeks says, "In him we live and move and have our being". We have our being in God's Being. That, is "Being and Becoming".

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.

 

[YmirGF]

To help give an accessible handle to you on what I posted, think of it in terms of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. God without qualities, and God with qualities. It's not two Brahmans...

Already did. Thanks for the tip though. I do accept a sense of the Hindu concept of the Avatar, so that gives me a leg up on most. (Not the greatest write-up I've ever read on the concept, but it will do.)

 

[Ouroboros]

So this Formlessness, this Source which is, for lack of any real ability to speak of it is the Ground 'potential' the unformed. Nothing that is, nothing that exists in form came into being outside of arising from this Source Ground. Now, here it comes. As this Source manifests, creates, this "movement", this "force" (no words capture this), this "activity" is Logos. Logos is God both God manifesting, and being manifested. Two parts here, "manifesting" and "manifested". The Manifesting, is the Manifestation of God. That Manifesting and the manifested is God, seen and known in form. Logos is the form of God. (If you say you understand at this point, I'd question that. ).

So now, when you speak of the attributes of God, "Infinite Love, Grace, Power," etc, those are all manifestations of Source. Those ARE Logos. Logos doesn't "have those", or share in those, or possess those, those ARE Logos itself. When you speak of God's Love, that is Logos. It is not separate from God, but a pure, expression of the Infinite Formless Ocean out of which it arises Infinitely! That, is Logos.

So when John says Logos became flesh...... What this saying is that God's Love become human. But he was human. That Expressing and Expression of God clothed itself in human form and "dwelt among us", as John says. The form of a human of course could bleed and die, but the Eternal cannot for it is ever-manifesting from God into the whole of creation, moment to moment without change. Everything changes that is manifested, but the Manifestor does not.

To add to that, when Heraclitus talked about Logos as God, he talked of it in a similar way as Einstein and other scientists comparing the laws and order of nature is "God". These abstract laws of information interchange in nature and reality is Logos. And it makes what God is. And when these laws become reality, actual flesh, that's a "Jesus" so to speak. Hence, Jesus is the image of Logos becoming realized or manifested.

 

[YmirGF]

It may take a little while. Just unfocus your eyes a little and like a 3D image on a 2-dimensional surface, a certain holographic image will begin to appear. (I've spent many years pondering such things).


To see if I can help lay the basic understanding here. Yes, Jesus as a flesh and blood human like anyone of us is not "God", 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. That is Infinite. So when I speak of eternal in Jesus, that is God. Jesus is both fully human, and fully divine. Are you with that distinction so far?

That Eternal "part" of Jesus is not separate from God. It's not a created anything. It is God manifesting. Think of it in this way. God is the Source of all creation. God itself is not a creation, nor created. It is without form. It is the Formless through which all form arises and manifests. It comes forth from God, from the Formless into form. With this so far? I very much encourage to you process that a little to try to see the picture before you assume anything.

So this Formlessness, this Source which is, for lack of any real ability to speak of it is the Ground 'potential' the unformed. Nothing that is, nothing that exists in form came into being outside of arising from this Source Ground. Now, here it comes. As this Source manifests, creates, this "movement", this "force" (no words capture this), this "activity" is Logos. Logos is God both God manifesting, and being manifested. Two parts here, "manifesting" and "manifested". The Manifesting, is the Manifestation of God. That Manifesting and the manifested is God, seen and known in form. Logos is the form of God. (If you say you understand at this point, I'd question that. ).

So now, when you speak of the attributes of God, "Infinite Love, Grace, Power," etc, those are all manifestations of Source. Those ARE Logos. Logos doesn't "have those", or share in those, or possess those, those ARE Logos itself. When you speak of God's Love, that is Logos. It is not separate from God, but a pure, expression of the Infinite Formless Ocean out of which it arises Infinitely! That, is Logos.

So when John says Logos became flesh...... What this saying is that God's Love become human. But he was human. That Expressing and Expression of God clothed itself in human form and "dwelt among us", as John says. The form of a human of course could bleed and die, but the Eternal cannot for it is ever-manifesting from God into the whole of creation, moment to moment without change. Everything changes that is manifested, but the Manifestor does not.

Ok, I'll pause here. And honestly, that will take some serious processing to begin to apprehend. As I said, try unfocusing your eyes a little and try to let the image emerge here.

I'll address the rest later.

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.