The Divinity of Christ

[wizanda]

Is this who you mean?

Margaret Barker

Yes, she has a similar understanding to my own based on years of study, she has decided the 1st temple period texts have El Elyon as the God Most High ultimate Creator, with YHVH one of his sons, who is part of a council of Elohim.

She perceives even New Testament authors like Paul and John accepted the Trinity concepts because of this; whereas the Jews no longer accepted it since coming back from the Babylon Exile.

drop most of the NT

I don't want people to drop the NT, would like people to understand it, for what it is....

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

John being written by the Sanhedrin is cleverly imposing Pharisaic thinking on to the whole Church, not emphasizing that Yeshua is divine in the slightest, as he already said much clearer... It is to change the meaning of words.

El is singular, and the Jews try to imply Elohim can be both singular and plural...

Which is rubbish, it is a pluralized word, and because of the term HaElohim existing throughout the ancient texts, they have trouble accepting that means 'Moses was a friend of The Gods', and that the term 'Sons of The Gods', doesn't fit with their strictly imposed upon the text monotheistic view.

You see the are always multiple angles we can analyze anything, so on a base level of John what is it saying, yet then check all other perspectives, especially if there is something illogical in the constructs of the statements provided.

So what is the recognised school of Christian thought that would accept this?

The Christian view of it, is like you say John is true, and Yeshua had no clue about Hebrew Grammar, and so was mixing up the languages on purpose to pathetically defend his position.

The lesson from 82:6 is the Divinity in all of us.

This is true; yet in the right context, we're fallen angels, not gods, there is only one God most high, and the mess (inception) that has been imposed on the world is to help remove all the fakes, who'd accept the lies.

That is where we start to have a more meaningful answer to 'who was Jesus?'

Find that when we first remove all the fallacies in a subject first, it makes it far easier to proceed in making a solid foundation on truth; rather than a load of things that have no merit.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't think any NT writer doubted that Jesus was Divine. I don't like getting too deep into things like this, because my head starts spinning around uncontrollably, figuratively speaking of course. But the little I cared to research this, it seems like the early church Fathers [Where were the Mothers?] debated and came up with all those things about Jesus and God being the same substance or something, therefore Jesus is God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Nicea 325 and then the subsequent one in 381 to seal the deal.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The stories of the NT were passed on by word of mouth, as so Christianity was largely a faith of oral traditions until the Nicene creed and the NT was canonised late in the 4th century.

We've already talked about the influence of the preaching of Paul.

Baha'is already make Jesus special, but they put him on an equal basis with all the other prophet/founders of other religions. So all of them are the "perfectly" polished mirrors reflecting God. The NT writers could care less about other religions except Judaism, though. And for them, Moses is not equal to Jesus. That's the great difficulty. To believe the NT as God's Word, it's hard not be believe Jesus is second only to God himself... if not, like some say... a part of a three-in-one God.

I appreciate the theological dissonance in elevating to Moses to the same level as Jesus. The comparison between the two would make an interesting thread in its own right. As I understand it we simply have a more advanced theology to understand who Jesus was in the NT. The question is, why didn't the gospel writers and the apostles say they were equal?

Ever been in a court of law and witnessed the impassioned presentation as lawyers present their cases for their clients. I rest my case.

 

[omega2xx]

(quote)
Do you not think that Jesus referred to himself as a 'son of man' due to the fact that he was , in fact born as a human being on earth? His mother was fully human, as were her parents, and ancestors. So he was descended from 'man' (mankind), and was himself a man.

IMO that is the main reason. I think He also said that because He wanted us to identify with His humanity. It was necessary for Him to live as a human and to be tempted as man is and still be without sin(Heb 2:16-18. I always cringe a little when say God could not experience some the things that man does. Can God experience hunger.
Can God experience temptation(Jas 1:13). Can God experience being tired, being worried, feeling guilt?

Except for feeling guilt, Jesus experfienced all of these things.

He was referred to as 'the son of David', remember? ( that meant also, that he would ascend to the 'throne of David', the kingly lineage of the ones who had 'sat upon Jehovah's Throne' in the line of Kings that once represented Jehovah on earth before Jehovah took away His backing to any king or ruler on earth 'until the one comes who has the legal right' appeared and once again, would represent Jehovah on earth to His people--please read it at Ezekiel 21:27.

Right . Jesus will assume the throne when the 7th trumpet ss sounded(Rev 11:15).

While on earth, who did Jesus say that He was?

He said He was God(Jn 10:30). "One" in that verse means "one entity."

Remember when he asked Peter who he thought him to be? What did Peter say, and how did Jesus respond to Peter's answer?

Peter said He was the Christ, and Jesus agreed with Peter's answer.

now, the Bible shows us that Jesus has a God, not that he himself is God- the one Jesus prayed to, taught about, made His Name known, and the same One who resurrected Jesus from the death state, is Jesus' God. Please read for yourself John 20:17, and see that it tells us that the same God that was Mary Magdalene"s God, was also Jesus' God. (also interesting it the fact that not once in the Bible do we find the Father addressing the Son as "my God"--food for thought)

As you know the Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man at the same time. This is a concept man can't understand completely. We must accept it by faith alone . If the Bible says He is both, then He is both. Many spiritual concepts must be accept this way.

Recall also, Malachi 3:6, which tells us that Jehovah God does not change. He was and is always Jehovah God the Almighty, as most older KJV translations clearly state at Psalms 83:18, and other places, as well. He is also found in the word Hallelujah-- the meaning of which is 'praise Jehovah'. you may have said that in your life, without truly understanding the meaning of the word?

Jesus did not change during His incarnation. He was still God, but He put His godly attributes on the back burner so to say(Phil 2:7). I did not know the meaning of Hallelujah and I am one who looks up the meaning of words. It is interesting that hallelujah is only found 4 times in the Bible and all in the 19th chapter of Revelation.

How would you respond with Scripture, to these Scriptural teachings that show that Jesus was never Almighty God, nor has he ever been equal to God, but has always been God's Son, even after His resurrection from the dead by His God, Jehovah? (notice, please, Acts 2:32) Hebrews chapters 3-4 describe Jesus as the High Priest to God very well. Anyone doubting that fact , please, do that the time to read and meditate on what is stated therein. This is solid food, not milk. It may be difficult to understand to those who have been taught things that do not agree in fact with what the Bible really teaches.

I would say that Jesus was always God almighty, but because He had to live like man and still be without sin, He did not use His Godly attributes. He taught that man must live wholly dependent on God as He did during His incarnation. He was the living example of Prov 3:5.

As John 17:17 shows, we must allow the Bible to interpret the Bible, in truth, rather than man-made doctrines.

That is the key to understanding the Scriptures. However remember no doctrine reinforced with Scripture is man-made. Man has only discovered what God was teaching.

Do you perhaps find anything helpful in these scriptures that do not support the trinity doctrine?

Maybe not helpful, but comforting. His incarnation is what qualified Jesus to become our great, merciful and faithful High priest. That was necessary for Him to make propitiation for my sins(Heb 2:17). I find that truth helpful and comforting.

 

[omega2xx]

as per the word elohim. it can apply to men, angels, and false gods that are spoken of in the Bible.

Not in the context of Genesis 1. Angels and false gods have no creative ability

The Hebrew word elohim is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. it is taken from the root word 'strong".or 'be strong'. when Elohim is applied to the God of Israel, it must rather be explained as as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, according to the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, vol. XXL , 1905, p. 208, in case anyone wishes to investigate the matter. It in no way is indicative of a triune godhead or trinity doctrine. sorry. (quote)

Even if that is true, which I do not accept, it only reinforces the doctrine of the Trinity. Gen 1:26 speaks of "us" and "our." You can't get a more plural of majesty than the Trinity.

 

[oldbadger]

It was nearly 25 years ago when a friend invited me to watch the a provincial rugby match. My home team Otago and the lowly Counties. The only thing is counties had this rising star Jonah Lomu who scored two tries and won the match. It was incredible. I'm a believer for sure.

Ha ha! Wasn't he unbelievable?
But I did not really mean to be humorous, I was serious.
If that account, with those descriptions, was lost for thousands of years, to be dug up during some excavation work for a new space-port (whatever) and some folks decided that it was a genuine document, and that there had been a man as big as Goliath, as fleet as Achilles, who could fly, and become a tank which made a thunderous sound........ which is why I believe most of G-Mark is true, save for certain editions, additions and exaggerations.

So I often think of Jonah Lomu when I read certain biblical accounts.

Don't worry, we're all nuts over here and there's absolutely nothing you can do!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Don't worry, we're all nuts over here and there's absolutely nothing you can do!

You're English. Of course your nuts!

So I often think of Jonah Lomu when I read certain biblical accounts.

I was just thinking about this in regards to John 20:31

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Gospels were not written as meticulously documented historical records. They were written to inspire the faithful. The Apostles were on fire spiritually. Their accounts are animated by a profound mysticism. Anyone who has tasted a drop of the Ocean of Divine revelation and become an intoxicated lover of the Almighty knows this too well. Paul's mystical experience is well documented in 2 Corinthians 12:1-12. He spoke of being fools for Christ.

So in that sense me affirming you are nuts is the highest compliment.

 

[omega2xx]

So why not stick with the title Jesus used to describe Himself, <<

Are you referring to Jesus saying He and God are one. The word for "one" in that verse means one essence. or are you referring to where Jesus said "he who seen Me has seen the Father.. How an you say "show us the father?
Why Are you willing to reject Jn 1:1.

rather than add things with man made doctrine such as the Trinity that clearly contradicts scripture? Where is 'Trinity' mention in the bible. How can Jesus be 'God' when the scripture I quote in post #5 clearly states He is not?

If the Bible says something, it is not man made. The Trinity is in the Bible you know how to read it.

Herein lies the problem. While all things are possible, it does not mean to say that anything is true, and we should just believe.

It also does not mean if we don't understand it, it can't be true. Actually true faith requires us to believe many things we don't understand completely---Without faith it is impossible to pleased God---"For by it(faith) men of old gained approval. Christianity is a faith based religion.

For over a thousand years Christians believed the earth was the centre of the universe. While that could have been theoretically possible with an Omnipotent All-Powerful God it clearly contradicted observation of the phenomenal world and reason. In like manner we need to question the logic of history such as the world being created in six days, six thousand years ago. We need to question and reassess doctrine such as Jesus being literally God in the flesh.

They believed something the Bible does not say. So why try to discredit God's word with something it does not teach? Is that an honest thing to do?

 

[David T]

Well that's a huge topic. Divinity in science is "laws of physics" where the divine imposes itself into the physical. That is carried into a lot of contemporary religious expression as the mind is divine. The opposite is really metaphysics there that point of objectivity is moved into the landscape and rendering the observer subject subjective to the landscape. In Jesus it's the Eucharist, in the case of heraclitus it's the logos" the logos is common but everyone seems to have their own private understanding" in case of Taoism it's the tao, in the case of Buddha it's expressed as failure. Buddha's success was first realized he had failed enlightenment he gave up, and he became enlightened. So it can manifest as the mind on one extreme , but base metaphysics always returns us to the body to our breath. God breathed holy breath into clay. Air is an invisible physical. Or it used to be invisible and visible both. Today instrumentation makes it visible therefore it appears to not be mysterious. Instrumentation renders the invisible visible and it loses its divinity to the instrumentationalist. The person is now consumed with a photograph of nature it becomes it's reality breath is no longer mysterious, it's rendered explained in the photograph of instrumentalism. I mock that a lot!!! But in doing so people react because you are explaining reality embodied they only know disembodiement of the mind.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Council of Nicea 325 and then the subsequent one in 381 to seal the deal.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The stories of the NT were passed on by word of mouth, as so Christianity was largely a faith of oral traditions until the Nicene creed and the NT was canonised late in the 4th century.

We've already talked about the influence of the preaching of Paul.



I appreciate the theological dissonance in elevating to Moses to the same level as Jesus. The comparison between the two would make an interesting thread in its own right. As I understand it we simply have a more advanced theology to understand who Jesus was in the NT. The question is, why didn't the gospel writers and the apostles say they were equal?

Ever been in a court of law and witnessed the impassioned presentation as lawyers present their cases for their clients. I rest my case.

I avoid courts of law whenever possible. I don't even watch Judge Judy.

But, tying in with one of your other posts, what was the motive behind the gospel stories? Since they were trying to appeal to the "pagans" also, could they have made a religion that had elements of Judaism mixed with pagan concepts? I know many people accuse Christianity of having done that, but is it that farfetched? You have a liberalizing of Judaism by essentially eliminating most of the Law. And you have the mystical things like a dying and rising God/man.

Come to think of it, isn't making Jesus divine a major issue with the Jews? Maybe even for you, the Baha'is. Because Jesus is made too divine and made God. Or, Baha'is make Moses more than a man and make him a perfectly polished manifestation. So you lower one and raise the other's position.

But regardless, it was vague enough where even the believers had to sort it all out as to what they believed... and then when they did, they made it "officially" The Truth.

 

[Daisies4me]

Not in the context of Genesis 1. Angels and false gods have no creative ability



Even if that is true, which I do not accept, it only reinforces the doctrine of the Trinity. Gen 1:26 speaks of "us" and "our." You can't get a more plural of majesty than the Trinity.

(quote)
okay. Can we agree that the Book of Genesis' contents gives us the account of the creation of the earth and the heavens, and the preparation of the earth for human habitation?
The very first verse also sheds light, when it tell us "in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth". So this sentence identifies God as the Creator, and then goes on to give a general account of the creative work relative to the earth. Are we in agreement so far?

 

[Daisies4me]

Yes it does, but you know the non-JW Christians will still find verses that'll make him God.

(quote)
perhaps TRY to show Jesus as God--however, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Men, however, will try to bend a scripture around to try to make it what they want it to say.
I find with the Bible translators who search for other scriptures that support or contradict each thought, comparing and researching to find what fits. Taking into account the context of a passage, who it is that is speaking and to whom it is being spoken, helps to see it a thought fits or contradicts. One example may be the scripture at Psalms 83:18, in the KJV, which states " That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

What does the word 'alone' indicate?

When Jesus was praying to His Father in the heavens, Jehovah God, at John 17:3, which
reads "and this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

now, what does the term 'only' mean?
no others, only Jehovah is the True God, as Jesus Himself stated.
Now, the sender is always greater than the one being sent, right?

John 20:17, "Jesus said to her:"stop clinging to me for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.'"
hmmm... Jesus has a God, the same One as Mary Magdalene's God.....

one more, while we are in the Book of John--look at 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. if ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father : for my Father is greater than I am."--these words spoken by Jesus himself. Hard to refute, aren't they?

 

[Daisies4me]

Yes, she has a similar understanding to my own based on years of study, she has decided the 1st temple period texts have El Elyon as the God Most High ultimate Creator, with YHVH one of his sons, who is part of a council of Elohim.

She perceives even New Testament authors like Paul and John accepted the Trinity concepts because of this; whereas the Jews no longer accepted it since coming back from the Babylon Exile.

I don't want people to drop the NT, would like people to understand it, for what it is....

John being written by the Sanhedrin is cleverly imposing Pharisaic thinking on to the whole Church, not emphasizing that Yeshua is divine in the slightest, as he already said much clearer... It is to change the meaning of words.

El is singular, and the Jews try to imply Elohim can be both singular and plural...

Which is rubbish, it is a pluralized word, and because of the term HaElohim existing throughout the ancient texts, they have trouble accepting that means 'Moses was a friend of The Gods', and that the term 'Sons of The Gods', doesn't fit with their strictly imposed upon the text monotheistic view.

You see the are always multiple angles we can analyze anything, so on a base level of John what is it saying, yet then check all other perspectives, especially if there is something illogical in the constructs of the statements provided.

The Christian view of it, is like you say John is true, and Yeshua had no clue about Hebrew Grammar, and so was mixing up the languages on purpose to pathetically defend his position.

This is true; yet in the right context, we're fallen angels, not gods, there is only one God most high, and the mess (inception) that has been imposed on the world is to help remove all the fakes, who'd accept the lies.

(quote) Find that when we first remove all the fallacies in a subject first, it makes it far easier to proceed in making a solid foundation on truth; rather than a load of things that have no merit.

(quote)

much of the diversity of religions is because people have become followers of men instead of listening to God. It is noteworthy that to a large extent, teaching they hold in common , but that differ from the Bible, originated in ancient Babylon. Their gods were triads of gods , among their gods were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind.
The Platonic Trinity itself is merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples and appears to be a rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the 3 hypostases or divine persons, taught by
"Christian churches" The Greek Philosopher Plato's conception of a divine trinity can be found in all the ancient pagan religions.
Ancient Babylon was outstandingly noted for its religion and for its defiance of Jehovah God the Almighty.
In the symbolism of Revelation, Babylon the Great is referred to as a "great city" , a "kingdom" that rules other kings. see Rev. 17:18.
it is described as having relations with the political rulers and men of commerce, while a third element shows that "has become a dwelling place of demons" and a persecutor of 'prophets and holy ones. check out Rev. 18:2, 9017, 24. and let's not overlook Revelation 18:4-5 indicate her destruction, and warns true believers to 'get out of her' or otherwise be destroyed along with her as being found guilty by association, and not separating one's self from the global empire of false religion that masquerades as being from God/ It's god is the 'god of this world', Satan the devil, 2 corinthians 4:3-4.
Lots to think about , isn't it? Always, always, go to your Bible for explanations.

 

[Daisies4me]

I don't think any NT writer doubted that Jesus was Divine. I don't like getting too deep into things like this, because my head starts spinning around uncontrollably, figuratively speaking of course. But the little I cared to research this, it seems like the early church Fathers [Where were the Mothers?] debated and came up with all those things about Jesus and God being the same substance or something, therefore Jesus is God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Baha'is already make Jesus special, but they put him on an equal basis with all the other prophet/founders of other religions. So all of them are the "perfectly" polished mirrors reflecting God. The NT writers could care less about other religions except Judaism, though. And for them, Moses is not equal to Jesus. That's the great difficulty. To believe the NT as God's Word, it's hard not be believe Jesus is second only to God himself... if not, like some say... a part of a three-in-one God.

(quote)
The APOSTATE church . The same one that killed off all of the Apostles, after they murdered Jesus, our Lord.
please don't confuse the two. Many Christians were lion food, to the entertainment of these perverted rulers who made up both the 'priesthood' and the 'rulership' over people...
While even in more recent times, Bible readers were burned at the stake by the order of the so-called 'religious' people... and how many died in Hitler's concentration camps because they refused to "Heil Hitler" (give praise to him as a god)... These are the perpetrators of the pagan teachings designed to confuse and mislead, and at the same time, attempt to silence those who remain loyal to the God of the Bible and do not allow pagan false teachings in their worship. Makes them enemies of Babylon the Great, and the governments they attach themselves to.

 

[omega2xx]

(quote)
okay. Can we agree that the Book of Genesis' contents gives us the account of the creation of the earth and the heavens, and the preparation of the earth for human habitation?

Yes

The very first verse also sheds light, when it tell us "in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth". So this sentence identifies God as the Creator, and then goes on to give a general account of the creative work relative to the earth. Are we in agreement so far?

YES

 

[Dawnofhope]

I avoid courts of law whenever possible. I don't even watch Judge Judy.

I spent a few days observing proceedings in the criminal justice system when I did forensic psychiatry as a psychiatric intern. It was fascinating listening to the lawyers excusing their clients behaviour on the grounds of poor upbringing, various stressors, or being alcohol/drug affecting and not really in control. My point is that lawyers have a narrative for their clients that they hope will influence and sway the opinion of the judge. There was definitely a narrative as the apostles travelled and preached. The purpose of the narrative was to convince and convert. Take John 20:31 for example. Its about inspiring faith. Of course there is embellishment and artistic licence as the message is preached.

But, tying in with one of your other posts, what was the motive behind the gospel stories? Since they were trying to appeal to the "pagans" also, could they have made a religion that had elements of Judaism mixed with pagan concepts? I know many people accuse Christianity of having done that, but is it that farfetched? You have a liberalizing of Judaism by essentially eliminating most of the Law. And you have the mystical things like a dying and rising God/man.

The first written record of the resurrection was about 55AD and this is Pauls letter to Corinth in ancient Greece. This is 1 Corinthians where we have the famous verses in Chapter 15 where Paul writes with great passion about the resurrection and likens his experience with the resurrected Jesus (on the road to Damascus) with the other appearances. The experience was being blinded and hearing Jesus's voice saying 'why are your persecuting me?' It happened well after the 40 days of alleged initial resurrection experiences, maybe a few years after. Paul likens what is in all likelihood a non-resurrection experience to the other allegedly resurrection experiences. As I understand it, Greek mythology was rife with gods and a resurrection from the dead probably tied in nicely with his audience's culture and mind set. Its interestingly that the gospels were most likely written down years after Paul and others had been preaching along these lines, so it all became part of the narrative. It was Paul who would have had the most influence with departing from Judaic law. Abdu'l-Baha says that the apostles were right to abrogate Mosaic law as it no longer met the needs of the new era.

Come to think of it, isn't making Jesus divine a major issue with the Jews? Maybe even for you, the Baha'is. Because Jesus is made too divine and made God. Or, Baha'is make Moses more than a man and make him a perfectly polished manifestation. So you lower one and raise the other's position.

Everything about Jesus seems to be an issue for the Jews but there is certainly the famous part in John's gospel when Jesus almost gets stoned to death for saying He is God, only to quote from psalms 82:6 "ye are all gods" John 10:34-36. Claiming to be God was certainly going to push all the wrong buttons for the Jews.

According to Baha'i theology there are conditions where a Manifestation is God, and that is when God speaks through Him, to say "I am God".

The Baha'is argue for the essential equality of all Manifestations in that they all bring a Message from God, it is just the message is suited to the capacity of the people and that is the difference. Baha'u'llah explains clearly in the Kitab-i-Iqan.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 50-56

But regardless, it was vague enough where even the believers had to sort it all out as to what they believed... and then when they did, they made it "officially" The Truth.

That is true. It wasn't until Constantinople aware of the entrenched disputes between bishops that the first council of Nicaea was called to resolve the issues. I can't imagine Constantinople was a deep thinker. The truth as you say became enshrined in the Nicene Creed, and anyone who sided with Arius one of the main detractors risked punishment by death.

Thank you for your persistence in exploring these questions, because as we may have gone around in circles, with each cycle the story becomes clearer and clearer (for me anyhow).

 

[CalvinFarage]

Yeshua, one of Jesus's names, relates to Yahweh

(Y)(E)s(H)u(A)
(Y)(A)(H)w(E)h
I'm pretty sure this is one of the proofs, even though I haven't heard much on it, only figured it out for myself.

 

[CG Didymus]

...It was Paul who would have had the most influence with departing from Judaic law. Abdu'l-Baha says that the apostles were right to abrogate Mosaic law as it no longer met the needs of the new era.

So 2000 years ago and the Law, given to them by their God, who insinuated that they were to be kept forever, no longer met the needs of what new era? Which laws in the Bible didn't work anymore?

It seems like the main reason Paul wanted to get rid of them was because he didn't want non-Jewish convert to Christianity to have to do them. So Paul makes it sound like the only purpose for the Law was to show the Jews they couldn't keep them. For him, a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus and not by keeping the Law.

But all people everywhere make their own laws apart from religion. If God's laws were so good why do we have to make our own? So has any "God-given" law book ever met the needs of the people?

 

[soulsurvivor]

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ. For example:

- Jesus is God

- Jesus is the 'Son of God'

- Jesus is the 'son of man'.

What is the best way of understanding the spiritual reality of Christ?

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

Jesus was an Avatar just like Rama and Krishna were Avatars.

An Avatar is a HUMAN into whom the second person of the Trinity descends and making him a 'Son of God'. So Jesus was a God during the time in his life when the Son was acting thru him.

 

[Muffled]

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ. For example:

- Jesus is God

- Jesus is the 'Son of God'

- Jesus is the 'son of man'.

What is the best way of understanding the spiritual reality of Christ?

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

I believe the statements are not contradictory but complementary. For instance it is not contradictory to say that an orange has orange color and to say that it has white seeds.

I believe God is permanently resident with no other resident spirit in Jesus.

I believe Krishna makes the claim but I believe it is a false claim.

 

[Muffled]

Interesting.

Here is the verse in context:

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So Christ is a reflection or image of God, much like the sun reflected in the mirror is an image of the sun. The mirror is not the sun yet perfectly reflects its light.

In this manner the unknowable essence called God could be reflected in the other religious founders.

I believe being the image of God does not make Jesus less God. The Muslims like to say merely a messenger when the words are not in the text and it does not say merely here either.