Incarnation question.

[Vinayaka]

To say that God could not be incarnate and remain limitless is a statement that puts a limit on what God can do. We are used to this world that is finite. If God is infinite, that means he can be fully present in Jesus and also fully present in the Father and in the Holy Spirit. If Jesus seemed to be limited that is because he chose to be for our sake because he is also fully human. However, his infinite nature was revealed throughout the gospel.

So Jesus was God? (I don't believe Jesus existed, just trying to get a handle on the Catholic view.) If so, then it is very close to Hinduism's Vaishnavism, where Krishna is God. (I'm not a Vaishnavite either) But in my version (Saivism) of Hinduism, God does not incarnate. And of course I believe in the version I follow. Others are welcome to believe in theirs, but its all just belief.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I believe the text says nothing about other messengers.

It's a generic statement about ALL Divine Messengers, not just about Jesus or any other specific one.

Nor, BTW, did I say Jesus is "just" a mirror! That's simply an analogy not to be taken literally.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[yokomodoful]

So Jesus was God? (I don't believe Jesus existed, just trying to get a handle on the Catholic view.) If so, then it is very close to Hinduism's Vaishnavism, where Krishna is God. (I'm not a Vaishnavite either) But in my version (Saivism) of Hinduism, God does not incarnate. And of course I believe in the version I follow. Others are welcome to believe in theirs, but its all just belief.

Yes. Jesus is God the second person of the Trinity. Consubstantial (of the same essence) of the Father and the Spirit. One God in three persons. He is not limited as us finite beings. Jesus is at the same time fully human and fully divine.

I do not know Vaishnavism where Krishna is God. If you explain it, I could explain the difference between their belief and mine.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes. Jesus is God the second person of the Trinity. Consubstantial (of the same essence) of the Father and the Spirit. One God in three persons. He is not limited as us finite beings. Jesus is at the same time fully human and fully divine.

I do not know Vaishnavism where Krishna is God. If you explain it, I could explain the difference between their belief and mine.

Hopefully a Vaishnavite can happen along and explain it for you. I can't.

 

[Muffled]

It's a generic statement about ALL Divine Messengers, not just about Jesus or any other specific one.

Nor, BTW, did I say Jesus is "just" a mirror! That's simply an analogy not to be taken literally.

Peace,

Bruce

I believe you can state that a cow is a horse but that doesn't make it so. If you think the text says that, prove it.

 

[Muffled]

So Jesus was God? (I don't believe Jesus existed, just trying to get a handle on the Catholic view.) If so, then it is very close to Hinduism's Vaishnavism, where Krishna is God. (I'm not a Vaishnavite either) But in my version (Saivism) of Hinduism, God does not incarnate. And of course I believe in the version I follow. Others are welcome to believe in theirs, but its all just belief.

I believe that Saivism can't possibly be worth following since it promotes false beliefs.

I believe there is a river east of the Island of Manhattan. So if someone does not believe that, he can look at a map and find it there and if he doesn't believe the map, he can take my word for it that I have crossed the river from Manhattan to New Jersey. It is the same with Jesus being an incarnation of God. It is in the Bible and I have Jesus in me testifying that it is so.

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe that Saivism can't possibly be worth following since it promotes false beliefs.

I believe there is a river east of the Island of Manhattan. So if someone does not believe that, he can look at a map and find it there and if he doesn't believe the map, he can take my word for it that I have crossed the river from Manhattan to New Jersey. It is the same with Jesus being an incarnation of God. It is in the Bible and I have Jesus in me testifying that it is so.

This is absolutely what you should believe. It's a core Christian belief to believe everyone else is wrong, and you're right. I congratulate in your unswaggering loyalty to your belief system.

As long as you don't take up the sword or the gun to promote your faith, I will continue to encourage you to practice it to the best of your ability. That is what Saivism teaches: to encourage all non-violent religious people to practice their faith to the best of their abilities. So keep doing that.

 

[BruceDLimber]

If you think the text says that, proveit.

There's nothing to prove: the text itself makes this quite clear.

I'll repeat just the begining of the passage:

{161}t is evident ...that the Bearers of the trust of God are made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause and the Bearers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the Celestial Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they therefore are regarded as one soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness. These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: 'No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers!' For they one and all summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the Unity of God, and herald unto them the [river] of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of Prophethood, and honoured with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an, revealed: 'I am all the Prophets.' Likewise, He saith: 'I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.'... Sayings such as this, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God's immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the day-springs of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: 'Our Cause is but one.' Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same...
[end quote]


—(The Book of Certitude, page 152)

And there's far more if you'd like to read it.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Poeticus]

I believe that Saivism can't possibly be worth following since it promotes false beliefs.
[/COLOR]

I believe that Christianity can't possibly be worth following since it promotes false beliefs.

EDIT: Unlike you, I am just joking.

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe that Christianity can't possibly be worth following since it promotes false beliefs.

Yeah, but .... it's rude to say that. Unbecoming of a Hindu. Keep it to yourself next time.

 

[Poeticus]

Yeah, but .... it's rude to say that. Unbecoming of a Hindu. Keep it to yourself next time.

Heyy, I just wanted to try it and offer the same medicine - it felt kinda good. But, it's too much Māyā, and hence is not good for the ego.

 

[Vinayaka]

Heyy, I just wanted to try it and offer the same medicine -

Oh, I know. The whole idea is pretty obvious when you think of it. If some other religion made more sense that the one you're in, then you'd better switch.

 

[apophenia]

Yeah, but .... it's rude to say that. Unbecoming of a Hindu. Keep it to yourself next time.

Un-'becoming' is the essence of hinduism.

:areyoucra

'Becoming' is being lost in illusion. :jiggy:

 

[Vinayaka]

Un-'becoming' is the essence of hinduism.

:areyoucra

'Becoming' is being lost in illusion. :jiggy:

Good point.