Is Jesus divine - a son of God?

[Krosswire]

Why would we Christians call "god" father ?

 

[Dunemeister]

The Greek word "pneuma" was translated as "spirit" in John 4:24; it was translated as "life" in Revelation 13:15. God is, therefore, "life." God is also "light" and "love." These are some of His many attributes, just as "pneuma" is, whether you translate it as "spirit" or as "life." These words don't describe His physical appearance, but none of them imply that He is non-physical. That's just your own interpretation. Raymond E. Brown (perhaps the world's leading authority on John's gospel -- and not a Latter-day Saint, by the way) says that the reference to God being "spirit" is "not an essential definition of God, but... means that God is spirit torward men because He gives the spirit which begets them anew."

The only problem with this analysis is its rather late provenance. Jewish and Christian tradition for well over 4,000 years is unanimous on the fact that God is, by nature, immaterial. So although your analysis is interesting, it doesn't outweigh the considered opinion of the vast majority of monotheists for well over 4000 years.

If we carry your statement "God is spirit = God is nonphysical" to its logical conclusion, then Jesus was not God.

Sigh. I'll do this AGAIN. God is, by nature, not physical. This does not bar God from enfleshing himself in humanity if that's his desire. It just means that the physicality is not essential to God.

He pointed out to His Apostles following His resurrection that He was not merely spirit but flesh and bones. You can't have it both ways, Dunemeister. You can't say that (1) God is non-physical, that (2) Jesus Christ is physical, and that (3) Jesus Christ is God.

Yes I can. See above.

One final thought... When Jesus Apostles first saw Him, they were afraid because they thought they'd seen a spirit. How could they see something that was non-physical. Don't you find it odd that Jesus never pointed this out to them? He told them that He had a physical body (given new life by His spirit, after having been dead for three days), but He didn't even question the concept that they thought they'd seen a spirit. He didn't correct them and say that a spirit is invisible. You seem to think it is, but He didn't and neither did they.

No, I say a spirit is immaterial, not invisible. People say they've seen ghosts, but they don't say they've seen a physical object.

 

[Dunemeister]

Why would we Christians call "god" father ?

It evokes the role that God is supposed to play in the life of the world. And of course, this is speaking metaphorically, and some of the original resonance of the word "Father" is lost on us because the word had different resonances than it did before. However, it still retains the notion of superordination, authority, life-givingness, and love (among other things).

 

[MarkForever]

The historic and orthodox teaching on this is that Jesus is fully divine and fully human at the same time (a mystery we cannot fully understand), based on the Bible, and developed institutionally starting with the Council of Nicea 323 AD presided by Emperor Constantine (1st Roman Christian emperor). Alot of elaboration could be said about this, but I'll just refer you to a good article in Christianity Today magazine "
Debating Jesus' Divinity" 2006 I believe.

 

[Katzpur]

The only problem with this analysis is its rather late provenance. Jewish and Christian tradition for well over 4,000 years is unanimous on the fact that God is, by nature, immaterial. So although your analysis is interesting, it doesn't outweigh the considered opinion of the vast majority of monotheists for well over 4000 years.

Oh, I see. God is defined by a majority rule. That appears to have been the case since about 325 A.D. Well, I'm afraid you're wrong about early Jewish and Christian tradition. It is true that Hellenized Christians understood God in the way most Christians do today. However, it was not from Jesus Christ or His Apostles that they came to their conclusions about God's nature, but from the pagan philosophers of the fourth and fifth centuries. According to the former Anglican bishop of London, J.W.C. Wand, "It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from this that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of their crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body."

Sigh. I'll do this AGAIN.

Jeesh! I'm sorry for troubling you. Do you think everybody on this forum has followed our previous conversations?

God is, by nature, not physical. This does not bar God from enfleshing himself in humanity if that's his desire. It just means that the physicality is not essential to God.

What do you mean, "by nature"? You haven't got one shread of evidence to support such a statement. Corporeality is not essential to God but neither is incorporeality. In Genesis, we're told that God He created us in His image, after His likeness. A couple of chapters later, we're told that Adam had a son, and that this son was in his image, after his likeness. Same exact wording and yet you don't seem to believe that God even has an image. Jesus Christ was said to be "the express image of His Father's person." How was Jesus the image of a non-person's person? The Bible says that Moses spoke to God face to face, as a man speaks to a friend. Over and over again, the scriptures speak of an anthopomorphic God but you choose to dismiss all of these references in favor of a single verse which can be correctly interpreted in more than one way. And people say that Mormons aren't Biblical!

No, I say a spirit is immaterial, not invisible. People say they've seen ghosts, but they don't say they've seen a physical object.

Can you name one thing you have ever seen that is not physical?

 

[Dunemeister]

Oh, I see. God is defined by a majority rule. That appears to have been the case since about 325 A.D. Well, I'm afraid you're wrong about early Jewish and Christian tradition. It is true that Hellenized Christians understood God in the way most Christians do today. However, it was not from Jesus Christ or His Apostles that they came to their conclusions about God's nature, but from the pagan philosophers of the fourth and fifth centuries. According to the former Anglican bishop of London, J.W.C. Wand, "It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from this that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of their crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] believe that God had a material body."

No, the God of the scriptures is defined by those who compose and handle it. Those who composed and handled the bible worked with a conception of God as nonphysical. This is simply beyond debate. Ancient Hebrews never, EVER conceived of God as in any way physical at any time. Period. End of story. QED.

Christians inherited this idea from their Jewish forebears. They didn't modify it with their understanding of Jesus as a sort of nexus between heaven and earth via the incarnation. Again, this is not a product of Nicea. From the very beginning, Jesus was regarded as divine and as human. There were questions, of course, about how that worked. It was a problem precisely because God Himself is immaterial, so the question arose how the divine and human aspects of Jesus worked. Some of those questions were partially settled at Nicea, but to say that Nicea represents some sort of break with common faith at the time is absurd.

Jeesh! I'm sorry for troubling you. Do you think everybody on this forum has followed our previous conversations?

It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with Christianity, but you should at least (by now) disagree with it because of what it actually says and implies, not on what you've been saying it means and implies in this thread. My frustration stems from our having had these discussions in the past and their apparent lack of impression upon the way you understand Christian thought. I guess I'll just have to keep my frustration to myself.

What do you mean, "by nature"? You haven't got one shread of evidence to support such a statement. Corporeality is not essential to God but neither is incorporeality.

God is a spirit. Spirits are nonphysical. QED

This statement of God's nature is unequivocal. Therefore, when we hear that we are created in the image of God, we have to rethink "image" not "spirit". If God is a spirit and therefore nonphysical, what might it mean for humans to be created "in his image"? Tradition (yes, that old bugbear again) has interpreted this to mean that we share some of God's intangible attributes such as intelligence, morality, emotion. If you understand the pagan context to which Genesis spoke critically, you can see that it is undercutting pagan practice of making images of God. We don't make images of God because God already has an image: us. Because we are God's image, we are to show forth God's character and implement his will in creation. In other words, "image" has a functional meaning, it doesn't imply God's physicality.

Jesus Christ was said to be "the express image of His Father's person." How was Jesus the image of a non-person's person?

This is bizarre. Who ever said that the Father is a non-person? And how does my idea imply that?

The Bible says that Moses spoke to God face to face, as a man speaks to a friend. Over and over again, the scriptures speak of an anthopomorphic God but you choose to dismiss all of these references in favor of a single verse which can be correctly interpreted in more than one way. And people say that Mormons aren't Biblical!

They're not. It's hard to express the unanimity with which Jews and Christians for 4000 years have understood God as immaterial. You may dismiss that as "mob rule" or "majority rule" if you like, but unanimity in theology is hard to come by, even in a community of shared tradition. It's THAT community that composed and interpreted scripture, and for 4,000 years, if the LDS church is right, EVERYBODY missed what the LDS seem to think is a simple, straightforward "fact" of scripture. Bunk. Rather, the situation is that people holding certain views about God (specifically that he is nonphysical) wrote the scriptures. If, on that conception, they said that God spoke "face-to-face" with Moses, we have to interpret that as metaphorical, expressing the degree of intimacy Moses enjoyed with God. That has been the view of Jews throughout their history, and the church agrees. The LDS church is building on sand.

Can you name one thing you have ever seen that is not physical?

Not that it's relevant, but no. But I know people who say they've seen ghosts (to go back to the example I used in my previous post).

 

[Katzpur]

No, the God of the scriptures is defined by those who compose and handle it.

Silly me. I thought God was who He was independently of anything mankind decides.

Those who composed and handled the bible worked with a conception of God as nonphysical.

Those who composed the Bible (i.e. authored the individual books) never said that God was "non-physical." It was those who have since interpreted it -- without direction from God Himself -- who have worked with a misconception of God that came about as the result of the influx of neo-platonic philosophy.

This is simply beyond debate. Ancient Hebrews never, EVER conceived of God as in any way physical at any time. Period. End of story. QED.

What do you mean, it's beyond debate? I just gave you a quote from a prominent non-LDS theologian that refutes your position. If you want to dismiss it, it's fine with me. I could provide others -- not from present-day theologians describing early Christian doctrines, but writings from the early Church fathers as well, but I guess if your mind is closed to the possibility that I may have a valid point to make, there's no point in our exploring this further.

Christians inherited this idea from their Jewish forebears. They didn't modify it with their understanding of Jesus as a sort of nexus between heaven and earth via the incarnation. Again, this is not a product of Nicea. From the very beginning, Jesus was regarded as divine and as human.

Up to this point, I agree with you.

There were questions, of course, about how that worked. It was a problem precisely because God Himself is immaterial, so the question arose how the divine and human aspects of Jesus worked.

It was a problem because by the time it became an issue people generally believed God to be immaterial. Had they still recognized the true nature of God and His true relationship with His Only Begotten Son, it wouldn't have been a problem at all. It's not a problem today for the Latter-day Saints.

Some of those questions were partially settled at Nicea, but to say that Nicea represents some sort of break with common faith at the time is absurd.

There was no common faith by then, Dunemeister. There was a predominent faith, but that's not to say that it was the same faith that Jesus Christ taught.

It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with Christianity, but you should at least (by now) disagree with it because of what it actually says and implies, not on what you've been saying it means and implies in this thread.

I don't disagree with Christianity. That's ridiculous. I am a Christian. I just disagree with the traditional Christian viewpoint on this particular point.

My frustration stems from our having had these discussions in the past and their apparent lack of impression upon the way you understand Christian thought. I guess I'll just have to keep my frustration to myself.

Apparently neither one of us has made any headway then. If I have misrepresented your position, please correct me. If it's just that I disagree with your beliefs, then I guess you're going to have to continue to be frustrated.

God is a spirit. Spirits are nonphysical.

A spirit itself has no flesh and bones, as Jesus pointed out. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says that a spirit can not occupy a physical body and still be a spirit. God is a spirit; I don't deny that at all. He is not, however, a disembodied spirit, and you have not supported your thesis that He is.

This statement of God's nature is unequivocal. Therefore, when we hear that we are created in the image of God, we have to rethink "image" not "spirit".

You have to rethink "image"; I don't. You have to rethink it so that it means what want it to mean. I accept it as a clear statement that God created man to have the same essential physical appearance He has. An "image" is the representation of something's physical qualities. That's all it is; it isn't the square peg you are determined to force into a round hole. Try using "image" in any other context than it is used in everyday language. You can't -- except when you're reading the Bible, and then all of a sudden it takes on an entirely different meaning than it means all of the rest of the time.

If God is a spirit and therefore nonphysical, what might it mean for humans to be created "in his image"?

We are spirits, too. That is the very essence of what we are. But we, like our Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ, are spirits residing in physical bodies. God's body and His Son's body are immortal; ours are mortal. When Jesus died, His spirit left His body and went to preach to the spirits in prison. When He was resurrected, His spirit re-entered his body, giving it immortal life. Once again, a spirit can exist either in or outside of a physical body. The spirit is eternal. It is the breath of life. God is spirit because He imparts life to all of us. That does not preclude Him having the body described in the scriptures.

Tradition (yes, that old bugbear again) has interpreted this to mean that we share some of God's intangible attributes such as intelligence, morality, emotion. If you understand the pagan context to which Genesis spoke critically, you can see that it is undercutting pagan practice of making images of God. We don't make images of God because God already has an image: us. Because we are God's image, we are to show forth God's character and implement his will in creation. In other words, "image" has a functional meaning, it doesn't imply God's physicality.

Who gives a damn about how tradition has interpreted this? The only thing that matters is whether tradition's interpretation is correct. And it's not. When we read of man's being created "in God's likeness, after His image," it is in the context of the physical creation of our universe. God created all forms of life and commanded them to reproduce after their kind. He created us in His image and tells us to reproduce after our kind. The scripture means what it says. It's not rocket science by any means.

This is bizarre. Who ever said that the Father is a non-person? And how does my idea imply that?

What did I miss? Is the Father a person or not? How can the Son be the express image of His Father's person if His Father is an incorporeal entity that fills the universe?

They're not.

Of course they are -- to a far greater degree than traditional Christianity is. We believe the Bible to mean what it says, except when what it says is obviously metaphorical. You ascribe a metaphorical interpretation to pretty much everything you can, and when you do that, you put yourself in a position of straying pretty radically from the original meaning of the text.

It's hard to express the unanimity with which Jews and Christians for 4000 years have understood God as immaterial. You may dismiss that as "mob rule" or "majority rule" if you like, but unanimity in theology is hard to come by, even in a community of shared tradition.

It's actually pretty easy to come by, provided you agree with the majority or face exile, prison or death. I can't believe you're really all that uninformed about the Church's first 1500 year history.

It's THAT community that composed and interpreted scripture, and for 4,000 years, if the LDS church is right, EVERYBODY missed what the LDS seem to think is a simple, straightforward "fact" of scripture. Bunk.

Thank you. I respect your beliefs, too.

Rather, the situation is that people holding certain views about God (specifically that he is nonphysical) wrote the scriptures. If, on that conception, they said that God spoke "face-to-face" with Moses, we have to interpret that as metaphorical, expressing the degree of intimacy Moses enjoyed with God.

We only have to interpret it as metaphorical if we insist on doing so. I see absolutely no reason at all why we can't just accept the fact that God spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to a friend, just as the Bible said happened. It's only when you close your mind to the possibility that "spirit" simply describes one of God's attributes (as opposed to using it as a synonym) that you are forced to interpret every other scripture in a such a way that they pose an unresolvable dilemma.

That has been the view of Jews throughout their history, and the church agrees.

"The" church? Like there's only one.

The LDS church is building on sand.

Whatever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*** Mod Post ***

Hey, all.

It seems like things are getting pretty heated in here. Please keep in mind that the Discuss Individual Religions forums are for discussion, not debate.

I recognize that beliefs surrounding these issues may vary quite a bit between Christian denominations. If you want to debate them, that's fine... but debates should be kept to the debating forums (which include the Same Faiths Debates forum, if you want to limit discussion to Christian perspectives).

Thanks,

9-10ths_Penguin

 

[Katzpur]

*** Mod Post ***

Hey, all.

It seems like things are getting pretty heated in here. Please keep in mind that the Discuss Individual Religions forums are for discussion, not debate.

I recognize that beliefs surrounding these issues may vary quite a bit between Christian denominations. If you want to debate them, that's fine... but debates should be kept to the debating forums (which include the Same Faiths Debates forum, if you want to limit discussion to Christian perspectives).

Thanks,

9-10ths_Penguin

Oh my gosh! I didn't even notice that this was not a debate forum! Sorry.