The Divinity of Christ

[Muffled]

Both are true if you accept that what is said of Him is dependent on if is about His incarnation. The doctrine of the The Trinity says He is God. The doctrine of His incarnation is that while on earth, He did not have all of the attributes of God, making Him the son of man, the title He gave himself while on earth.

We also need to accept 2 Biblical principles---With God nothing is impossible and some Biblical doctrines are beyond man's perfect understanding. Christians do not have to perfectly understand every principle of "God,
We just have to believe them.

I don't believe that doctrine has a rational basis.

I believe He is the son of man because He is Mary's child not because of a drop in the attributes of God.

I believe it is not the only title He gave Himself.

I believe that should be some doctrines of men about the Bible are incomprehensible and illogical.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Interesting. Do you think He existed prior to HIs descent. When did His existence begin?

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Viewing Jesus as God contradicts other scripture.


1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

There are plenty more examples along these lines. My point is that we need t be clear about under what circumstances Jesus can be God, although He clearly isn't. That's the paradox I'm exploring through this OP and the mirror analogy of the source and the reflection makes most sense to me.

Perhaps you are happy with the contradiction and do not wish to question deeper.

What is the evidence for suggesting that Muhammad was more than a Messenger of God?

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

The Christians of course have quite a lot to say about the laws of the NT and OT.

https://www.gci.org/law/otl00

I'm comfortable with much of the conservative Christian perspective. Of course Baha'u'llah brought the New NT that completely fulfils the OT law. That's much more relevant for today IMHO.

 

[Beth Stitely]

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?

And where does the title "Son of Man" come from?

 

[Beth Stitely]

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?

Let me re-phrase that...who refers to Jesus as the Son of Man?

 

[Beth Stitely]

Let me re-phrase that...what refers to Jesus as the Son of Man?

Viewing Jesus as God contradicts other scripture.


1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

There are plenty more examples along these lines. My point is that we need t be clear about under what circumstances Jesus can be God, although He clearly isn't. That's the paradox I'm exploring through this OP and the mirror analogy of the source and the reflection makes most sense to me.

Perhaps you are happy with the contradiction and do not wish to question deeper.

What is the evidence for suggesting that Muhammad was more than a Messenger of God?

 

[Beth Stitely]

Viewing Jesus as God contradicts other scripture.


1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

There are plenty more examples along these lines. My point is that we need t be clear about under what circumstances Jesus can be God, although He clearly isn't. That's the paradox I'm exploring through this OP and the mirror analogy of the source and the reflection makes most sense to me.

Perhaps you are happy with the contradiction and do not wish to question deeper.

What is the evidence for suggesting that Muhammad was more than a Messenger of God?

Do you really think John doesn't believe Jesus is God?...come on, really. Have you read John 1?

 

[soulsurvivor]

Interesting. Do you think He existed prior to HIs descent. When did His existence begin?

I am a Hindu. We believe is reincarnation - meaning all of us have had hundreds of different lives.

In this particular life, Jesus had the good fortune of having the second person of Trinity descend into his body and make him a Son of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you really think John doesn't believe Jesus is God?...come on, really. Have you read John 1?

Of course.

Especially when we consider some other words of John about Jesus.

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I

The meaning of logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Greek Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

 

[Dawnofhope]

Let me re-phrase that...who refers to Jesus as the Son of Man?

I posted this a few months ago

A Baha'i perspective on Jesus as the 'Son of God'

Hope it answers the question from both a Christian and Baha'i perspective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am a Hindu. We believe is reincarnation - meaning all of us have had hundreds of different lives.

In this particular life, Jesus had the good fortune of having the second person of Trinity descend into his body and make him a Son of God.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I'm a Baha'i. Baha'is revere Krishna as having the same status a Christ. That being said I know little about Hinduism but am working on learning a little more. Do you think there might be nay connection between the Christian concept of rebirth and the Hindu concept of reincarnation?

Krishna - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

 

[Beth Stitely]

Of course.

Especially when we consider some other words of John about Jesus.

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I

The meaning of logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Greek Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

Philo is not the author of the concept of logos. The concept was around for about 650 years prior to Philo. Philo only provides us his definition of logos, just as John does in John 1 where he says Jesus (Logos) IS God and that Jesus (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us.

You have also cut short John 5:19 - Jesus goes on to say he does only what his father does. This is not in imitation but in virtue of his sameness of nature. In fact, the whole discourse begins at 5:1 where Jesus heals a lame man on the Sabbath. The Jews accepted that God works on the Sabbath but not man and yet Jesus equates himself with God by healing on the Sabbath. The Jews recognised this (v18). Please read all these verses in context.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Philo is not the author of the concept of logos. The concept was around for about 650 years prior to Philo. Philo only provides us his definition of logos, just as John does in John 1 where he says Jesus (Logos) IS God and that Jesus (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us.

Maybe John means what you think it means, but it seems far from certain. We need a narrative to make sense of contradictory statements rather than taking one set of scripture literally and ignoring or minimising other scripture. For example later on in John 1 we have

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18

If no man has ever seen God at anytime, and yet a multitude have seen Jesus, then we have a contradiction, would you not agree?

Another apparent contradiction presents itself in the next few verses when John the disciple and apostle says of the John the Baptist that he claimed not to be the return of Elijah. In Malachi 4:5 it is prophesised that the Elijah would come before the Messiah. Yet Jesus indicates clearly to His perplexed disciples that John the Baptist was indeed Elijah (Matthew 17:12). How do we reconcile these contradictory statements? John the Baptist simply has a similar spirit to Elijah and so Jesus is correct, but not the same physical person so John the Baptist as recorded by John the apostle is correct also.

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. John 18-21

It is the only example of the return of a prophet in the NT and on this basis I argue that the Returned Christ returns in the spirit of Jesus, but is not the same physical body.

You have also cut short John 5:19 - Jesus goes on to say he does only what his father does. This is not in imitation but in virtue of his sameness of nature. In fact, the whole discourse begins at 5:1 where Jesus heals a lame man on the Sabbath. The Jews accepted that God works on the Sabbath but not man and yet Jesus equates himself with God by healing on the Sabbath. The Jews recognised this (v18). Please read all these verses in context.

If we examine the whole of John 5 as you say it seems to strengthen the argument that the Son and Father are distinct from each other. Rather than the Father and Son being exactly the same, the father has given the Son authority. We also have a clear break from the Old Covenant as Jesus has brought the New Covenant, and has the authority from God to change Mosaic law.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. John 5:19

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. John 5:26-27

John 1:1-3 is a highly significant opening to John's gospel as he brings a new understanding to the nature of Jesus as distinct from both man and God, yet with similarities to both, thus supporting an understanding of logos similar to Philos.

 

[Beth Stitely]

Maybe John means what you think it means, but it seems far from certain. We need a narrative to make sense of contradictory statements rather than taking one set of scripture literally and ignoring or minimising other scripture. For example later on in John 1 we have

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18

If no man has ever seen God at anytime, and yet a multitude have seen Jesus, then we have a contradiction, would you not agree?

Of course not
This verse says...no man has seen God but Jesus declares him...when you see Jesus, you see God! Jesus even says "if you see me, you see the father". Following on the previous verse...Moses' system was inferior, under it no one could see God.

Another apparent contradiction presents itself in the next few verses when John the disciple and apostle says of the John the Baptist that he claimed not to be the return of Elijah. In Malachi 4:5 it is prophesised that the Elijah would come before the Messiah. Yet Jesus indicates clearly to His perplexed disciples that John the Baptist was indeed Elijah (Matthew 17:12). How do we reconcile these contradictory statements? John the Baptist simply has a similar spirit to Elijah and so Jesus is correct, but not the same physical person so John the Baptist as recorded by John the apostle is correct also.

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. John 18-21

It is the only example of the return of a prophet in the NT and on this basis I argue that the Returned Christ returns in the spirit of Jesus, but is not the same physical body.

You make this claim but this is not what scripture tells us, this is a conclusion that you have drawn.


If we examine the whole of John 5 as you say it seems to strengthen the argument that the Son and Father are distinct from each other. Rather than the Father and Son being exactly the same, the father has given the Son authority. We also have a clear break from the Old Covenant as Jesus has brought the New Covenant, and has the authority from God to change Mosaic law.

Jesus does not change Mosaic Law. Jesus came to fulfill the purpose of the Law, which is to point to him. (Read Galatians). Yes, the Father and the Son are distinct and yet are one. See John 1:1

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. John 5:19

I commented on this in the last post.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. John 5:26-27

John 1:1-3 is a highly significant opening to John's gospel as he brings a new understanding to the nature of Jesus as distinct from both man and God, yet with similarities to both, thus supporting an understanding of logos similar to Philos.

I can't understand how you can say this...it clearly says Jesus (Logos) was WITH God (separate) and WAS God

 

[soulsurvivor]

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I'm a Baha'i. Baha'is revere Krishna as having the same status a Christ. That being said I know little about Hinduism but am working on learning a little more. Do you think there might be nay connection between the Christian concept of rebirth and the Hindu concept of reincarnation?

Krishna - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

I did not know there was a Christian concept of rebirth (unless you mean resurrection). Reincarnation is not the same as resurrection. Reincarnation just means having multiple human lives in different physical human bodies until you are finally free of the need to be reborn on earth. I think resurrection after death means something quite different.

 

[psychoslice]

In my way of thinking the Christ is a state of Consciousness, its not a name for Jesus, he became the Christ just as we all can, there is no divinity in the Christ, its our nature, or true inner Being, we need to stop putting Jesus and every other god-man up on a pedestal, and putting ourselves below, we need to grow up !!!!.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I can't understand how you can say this...it clearly says Jesus (Logos) was WITH God (separate) and WAS God

The only way we can come to understand what John means in John 1:1 is to consider the whole of John in its entirety. If we focus solely on one verse then its too easy to come to an incorrect conclusion. You have already acknowledged there is an aspect of distinction between God and the Word. We simply understand the 'WAS God' differently. I've provided sufficient scripture within John to argue that Jesus is the Son of God as distinct from God.

The argument based on reason is simple logic (ironically another meaning of the Greek word logos) that an infinite God is uncontainable, especially in the finite physical form such as a human body. Scripture once again echoes this argument:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 1 Kings 8:27

The only explanation of Christ's Divinity that makes sense IMHO is that Jesus reflects God's attributes perfectly. St Paul appears to support this view.

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 3:18

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. 2 Corinthians 4:4

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
Colossians 1:14-15

 

[Dawnofhope]

I did not know there was a Christian concept of rebirth (unless you mean resurrection). Reincarnation is not the same as resurrection. Reincarnation just means having multiple human lives in different physical human bodies until you are finally free of the need to be reborn on earth. I think resurrection after death means something quite different.

There is a concept of rebirth or being born again in Christianity that is distinct from the resurrection. However it refers to a spiritual transformation or renewal that happens in this life once we reach a higher level of consciousness (Christ consciousness in the Christian context).

What are the origins of the Hindu concept of reincarnation?

 

[Dawnofhope]

In my way of thinking the Christ is a state of Consciousness, its not a name for Jesus, he became the Christ just as we all can, there is no divinity in the Christ, its our nature, or true inner Being, we need to stop putting Jesus and every other god-man up on a pedestal, and putting ourselves below, we need to grow up !!!!.

I agree in part. Christos as you know is Greek for the anointed One or in the historic context the Messiah. He does represent an exalted level of spiritual consciousness. Through is teaching we can attain an exalted level of consciousness too. However I do not believe to the same extent for most humans, nor do I believe Christ was unique as His exalted being has parallels in other great religious traditions.