The Knowledge of Jesus [Archive]

View Full Version : The Knowledge of Jesus

Seeker314

8th August 2004, 08:40 PM

PatrickM

8th August 2004, 09:50 PM

His teachings, no. But in my opinion, Christianity is more than just Jesus' teachings. He asked his disciples "who do you say that I am?" This is significant regarding atonement, because if He was just some man who died for a noble cause, we are still dead in our sins.

But if He was God the Son, living the pure sinless life which we (and any mortal man) cannot, then His sacrafice on the cross, the spilling of sinless blood for our sins, carries eternal weight.

Just my opinion, but it is of eternal importance as to Who He is as much as what He taught.

onlyzc

8th August 2004, 10:48 PM

First of all, the "messege" does not make the "messenger" holy, I am not made holy by spreading the gospel. Holiness belongs to God alone. Secondly, I believe that when God himself teaches of truth beyond truth, wisdom beyond wisdom, it carries more wieght than any other man who has fallen short of the glory of God. Remember Christ had never sinned. Finnaly I agree the man, who was God on earth, was more than just his teachings. It is the idea of God dieing for us, and rising from the dead, conquering sin, and thus death, that makes us Christians. I have no doubt of the divenity of Christ.

BInC

9th August 2004, 12:11 AM

Short answer: Yes, it changes everything.

Long Answer: ;)

First of all, If you were to come to decide that Jesus was not God but merely a man (a smart one, but still a man only) then you are saying that he was not perfect, and therefore could have been wrong about one of the things he said. But the main thing is this: He said he was Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior. If he was not, he was a madman. He claimed to be the son of God, the greatest blasphemy possible. No great teacher could possibly make that claim unless it was true. Anyone who knew the scriptures well enough would know better than to say somthing like that, knowing it would get them killed. If Jesus was not the Savior, and didn't think he really was, then he would not have put himself on the cross. He would have had his disciples protect him, and would have fled from the city. Now that I think about it, claiming to be the Messiah when he knew he was not would be pretty close to the anti-christ, would it not? A false prophet at the least, and I don't need to remind you of the bible's warnings against false prophets. If he actually believed he was the Son of God, but wasn't, then he was insane. How crazy would you have to be to think somthing like that? Are you going to listen to advice from someone who in this day and age would be locked in a padded room?

The only other choice is that he was right. He was who he said he was, making all his teachings perfectly true, for they could be nothing else. On this subject, there is no way for him simply to be "a good teacher." If he would not have made that claim, it could have been possible. But he did say it. Very clearly. He did it intentionally, so we would have a simple choice: all or nothing.

As for the possiblity of the writers of the bible telling "fibs," even to convey the intened meaning of the teachings, then our religion is constructed by man, not God. I cannot believe that. Once one part of the bible is considered to be anything less than truth, the validity of the rest of it must come in to question. Again, if our religion is a thing made by man, and not God, then we are all doomed to an eternity in hell (or maybe not, depending on which religion ended up being right). Thankfully, we don't have to worry about that. When Jesus said he was the Son of God, it was the truth. When you read that Jesus walked on water, you are reading the truth. In these times, it is us trying to walk on water. I think you might remember what happened when the other man lost his faith in the power of Jesus. Personally, when I walk on water, I want the man next to me to be the Son of God, and I do believe he has the power to give me my footing.

Freelander

9th August 2004, 12:52 AM

BInC, I just wanna say that was a dang good answer.

PaladinGirl

9th August 2004, 01:06 AM

Crispie

9th August 2004, 01:10 AM

If the Christ was indeed only a man, and not the son of God, then everything he said would have no meaning, and everything he ever did would be in vain.

PaladinGirl

9th August 2004, 01:18 AM

If the Christ was indeed only a man, and not the son of God, then everything he said would have no meaning, and everything he ever did would be in vain.
Exactly! Very good point!

rainbowprism

9th August 2004, 02:18 AM

Let's say I feel really noble tommorow and say that I'm going to let myself be crucified for everyones sins....not gonna do a dang thing because I'm tainted with sin.

See, in the OT animals were used in sacrifices as atonements for sins. The reason being was that the animals were innocent from sin, and unable to have commited sin themselves. It was thier innocence that was used to cover, or reconcile, ones sin. The very word atone means to bring together in mutual agreement through vicarious suffering! Vicarious meaning 'living or acting out through another'. God fully weaves a context of atonement throughout the NT (starting even in Genesis 3!) so that the need for Jesus would be understood when he came. Jesus HAD to be sinless and innocent to be able to atone for our sins.

If you need me to expand....I've got a bag full o'tricks over here.

DanielRB

9th August 2004, 07:00 AM

I have been witness to more than one theory of Jesus-as-man-only (the Qur-an, "The Da Vinci Code"), and I've come to consider this question...

Does the truth of Jesus' words become any less if he were "merely" a man? Does Jesus have to be "the only begotten Son of God" to give his words their validity? What if allegorical interpretations of depicted events are necessary to understand the truly intended meaning of the message; were the writers of the Gospels maybe not also poets, "literati" of their time (because we KNOW that uneducated peasants, however pious, could not have written any Gospel!)? As poets wouldn't they use symbol and simile to tell the tale, just as Jesus used parables? Considering these questions, does it not become at least possible to consider the scenario that Jesus was "merely" a man? But regardless of whether or not Jesus was "merely" a man, doesn't the wisdom of his teachings stand? Doesn't it make sense that the messenger does not make the message holy, but rather the message makes its messenger holy; could this be the true nature of Jesus' "divine" heritage? That he brought such indelible wisdom to humankind's history, the wisdom necessary for the race to go from Man to "Son of Man", and that such a "(r)evolutionary" step in Man's history could only be accomplished by spreading "the Word"! And by perceiving Jesus as (also) mortal, we can relate to Jesus better and understand what kind of man he must have truly been to spread the Word like he has! In essence, we can begin to see the possibility that, if we understood the Word as he did, we would be able to do things as great as he did, and every one of them for the Glory of God!!

But forgive me, I digress, so to reiterate my question:

Does the status of Jesus' divinity change the truth value of the knowledge he makes available in the Gospels?

I thank any and all in advance for their feedback concerning this topic; it is one of great personal significance...

"He who has ears, let him hear"...
I'll just add my two cents here...

Often those who believe Jesus was just a man believe that certain things in the gospels were added later in order to make Him seem more divine--perhaps His miracles, His resurrection, etc. Yet they often keep the ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and other passages.

In essence, I see this approach as creating the Jesus that you want to see in the Bible. It's the approach Thomas Jefferson took when he started cutting out the miracles of the Bible to extract just the ethical teachings.

But why keep the ethical teachings? What do they mean? How are they valuable? If you already believe in them, does the fact that someone else said them--such as the 'historical Jesus', as opposed to the Jesus of the gospels--add anything to them? Does it matter that the gospels are good 'quote books' for certain ethical principals?

I would agree with what has been said about Jesus being anything but a great teacher if He claimed to be the Son of God and wasn't. And if the gospels are unreliable concerning these issues, then why couldn't they also be unreliable concerning His ethical teachings?

Indeed, many of His ethical teachings make no sense to me if we ignore the supernatural. What good is all this persecution for the name of Christ if there really is no "great reward in heaven" (Matt 5:11,12)? Even if there is a heaven, but Jesus is not the way there (or the only way), then why on earth take His name and be persecuted?

In Christ,

Daniel

Seeker314

9th August 2004, 04:42 PM

Seeker314

9th August 2004, 05:06 PM

I'll just add my two cents here...

Often those who believe Jesus was just a man believe that certain things in the gospels were added later in order to make Him seem more divine--perhaps His miracles, His resurrection, etc. Yet they often keep the ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and other passages.

And isn't such modification possible, if not entirely likely (especially considering that the Church wasn't formally established until 325 AD, and that by an Emperor whose power was being threatened by the teachings of Christ!)?

In essence, I see this approach as creating the Jesus that you want to see in the Bible. It's the approach Thomas Jefferson took when he started cutting out the miracles of the Bible to extract just the ethical teachings.

Or perhaps you're just seeing the Jesus "they" want you to see; a Jesus with a divine heritage, a heritage that you could NEVER hope to emulate, because Jesus' dad is God, while your dad is just some "mere mortal". But if Jesus was mortal, like us, then suddenly a whole new possibility of actually becoming like Jesus becomes available, one that EVERY TRUE CHRISTIAN should strive for...

But why keep the ethical teachings? What do they mean? How are they valuable? If you already believe in them, does the fact that someone else said them--such as the 'historical Jesus', as opposed to the Jesus of the gospels--add anything to them? Does it matter that the gospels are good 'quote books' for certain ethical principals?

Here you seem to be implying that, "If Jesus is not God, then there is no God"; put another way, you're saying that if Jesus is not God then his teachings become valueless, which I would not support. Jesus is "divine" exactly because the Word he brought to us is divinely inspired, the Word of God that teaches us how we ought to live. Just as Jesus said, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20) Jesus identified himself with the Word of God he had discovered, so much so that he considered himself synonymous with it; wherever people discussed the Word of God, so too did they discuss the spirit of Jesus ("the Holy Spirit").

I would agree with what has been said about Jesus being anything but a great teacher if He claimed to be the Son of God and wasn't. And if the gospels are unreliable concerning these issues, then why couldn't they also be unreliable concerning His ethical teachings?

I have no problems with Jesus claiming to be the Son of God; I have BIG problems with Jesus claiming to be "the only-begotten Son of God", because we are all God's children, and anyone who would claim otherwise does not understand the nature of God. God is the Father of ALL BEING, not just Jesus' being. And as for Jesus' ethical teachings, they (theoretically speaking) could be unreliable, but they have withstood the test of time, and for anyone who understands the nature of God, they also withstand the tests of reason and of faith...

Indeed, many of His ethical teachings make no sense to me if we ignore the supernatural. What good is all this persecution for the name of Christ if there really is no "great reward in heaven" (Matt 5:11,12)? Even if there is a heaven, but Jesus is not the way there (or the only way), then why on earth take His name and be persecuted?

Remember; if Christ and the Word are synonymous, then dying in the name of Christ is dying for the Word of God, and God does reward those who die in His name. Also remember, "the Kingdom of God is within you". (Luke 17:21) So having the Word of God within you, I mean TRULY having it within you, will propel you into a perpetual state of "heaven", where you will truly realize that everything that happens, happens according to the Will of God, and thus is perfectly good. Only those who truly know and understand the Word (such as Jesus) can realize this, which is why one such as Jesus can be willing to be crucified in God's name.

Look at it this way; if Jesus is God, why does he have to ask himself for another way to face Roman law (Matthew 26:39)? If God is one, how can He be of two wills? And if Jesus is God, how can he forsake himself (Matthew 27:46)? And what about the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, discovered in Nag Hammadi Egypt in the 1940's; is it to be ignored merely because it was not included in the Bible, meanwhile archaeologists have dated it to be older and more reliable than most manuscripts used for Bible translations today! These are all questions which must be addressed if we are to avoid embracing dogma and blind faith, and I appreciate your taking the time to consider them.

In Christ,

Daniel
Your Brother in Christ,

Seeker314

DanielRB

9th August 2004, 06:52 PM

Hi Seeker, thanks for your post. :wave:

And isn't such modification possible, if not entirely likely (especially considering that the Church wasn't formally established until 325 AD, and that by an Emperor whose power was being threatened by the teachings of Christ!)?I disagree with your understanding of the 'formal establishment' of the Church. Numerous writings (outside of the New Testament) by both Christians and non-Christians attest to the existence of the Church before 325 AD. It may have not be structured exactly like the post-Nicean Church, but it most certainly existed as an organized entity (at times, organized entities as various schisms existed both before and after Nicea.)

Or perhaps you're just seeing the Jesus "they" want you to see; a Jesus with a divine heritage, a heritage that you could NEVER hope to emulate, because Jesus' dad is God, while your dad is just some "mere mortal". But if Jesus was mortal, like us, then suddenly a whole new possibility of actually becoming like Jesus becomes available, one that EVERY TRUE CHRISTIAN should strive for...I strive to be Christ-like, even though I believe Him to be divine. I don't see how my belief bars me from emulating Him in all that I think, say and do. :scratch:

I agree that our preconceptions can color our view of Christ. However, if I accept the New Testament as the Word of God, then I should make every effort to understand what the original authors were trying to convey. If I believe that the New Testament contains some truth and some falsehood, then it becomes very difficult to decide what exactly is true and what is false. My choices of what is true and false then usually come down to what I want to believe.

Now, you can broaden the discussion and state that I believe the New Testament to be the Word of God because of my preconceptions. I think that's a valid point. But when you try to disect the New Testament, there isn't much textual evidence--or any kind of historical evidence--to say "Jesus really did say, 'blessed are the peacemakers' but didn't really say 'I and my Father are One.'"

Here you seem to be implying that, "If Jesus is not God, then there is no God"; put another way, you're saying that if Jesus is not God then his teachings become valueless, which I would not support. Jesus is "divine" exactly because the Word he brought to us is divinely inspired, the Word of God that teaches us how we ought to live. Just as Jesus said, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20) Jesus identified himself with the Word of God he had discovered, so much so that he considered himself synonymous with it; wherever people discussed the Word of God, so too did they discuss the spirit of Jesus ("the Holy Spirit").I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I meant to imply that if Jesus claimed that He was somehow God's Son in a unique way, that He had been in God's presence, that He existed before Abraham, that He was greater than Moses--and many other things--and these things were not true, then why should His ethical teachings be correct?

Remember the example that I used--Jesus' claim that we are blessed if we are persecuted for His name's sake. It's not just atheists who persecute Christians (indeed, historically atheists haven't persecuted Christians much at all until the 20th century); it's people like Saul of Tarsus, who believed that Christians lied about the person of God. Saul thought that he was obedient to God in persecuting the Christians.

Imagine for a minute that Jesus was totally wrong about who He was. Would God bless those who were persecuted for believing in Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. If people like Saul were correct, and Jesus was a deceiver and God was sorely displeased with Jesus' claims, then I think a curse rather than a blessing would be given to Jesus' followers. Sure, you could assume that God admired people who followed Jesus, even if Jesus was wrong--but on what would you base that assumption? Feelings? Personal preference on what God "should" be like?

I have no problems with Jesus claiming to be the Son of God; I have BIG problems with Jesus claiming to be "the only-begotten Son of God", because we are all God's children, and anyone who would claim otherwise does not understand the nature of God. God is the Father of ALL BEING, not just Jesus' being. And as for Jesus' ethical teachings, they (theoretically speaking) could be unreliable, but they have withstood the test of time, and for anyone who understands the nature of God, they also withstand the tests of reason and of faith...It seems as though you have a conception of what God is like. On what do you base this concept?

You say that Jesus' ethical teachings have 'withstood the test of time'. In what way? How have they been shown to be correct? And what are the tests of reason and of faith?

Remember; if Christ and the Word are synonymous, then dying in the name of Christ is dying for the Word of God, and God does reward those who die in His name. Also remember, "the Kingdom of God is within you". (Luke 17:21) So having the Word of God within you, I mean TRULY having it within you, will propel you into a perpetual state of "heaven", where you will truly realize that everything that happens, happens according to the Will of God, and thus is perfectly good. Only those who truly know and understand the Word (such as Jesus) can realize this, which is why one such as Jesus can be willing to be crucified in God's name.I'm confused by your statement about Christ and the Word, because the passage of scripture that calls Christ the Word--John 1--also equates the Word with God Himself. If you believe this passage to be accurate, then does it not indicate that Jesus is greater than a mere man, but that He is also God the Creator of all?

Furthermore, the passage of scripture you quoted--Luke 17:21--is better translated "the Kingdom of God is in your midst", i.e., in the person of Jesus.

Look at it this way; if Jesus is God, why does he have to ask himself for another way to face Roman law (Matthew 26:39)? If God is one, how can He be of two wills? And if Jesus is God, how can he forsake himself (Matthew 27:46)? And what about the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, discovered in Nag Hammadi Egypt in the 1940's; is it to be ignored merely because it was not included in the Bible, meanwhile archaeologists have dated it to be older and more reliable than most manuscripts used for Bible translations today! These are all questions which must be addressed if we are to avoid embracing dogma and blind faith, and I appreciate your taking the time to consider them.You bring up several issues here, Seeker. Are you familiar with the Gospel of Thomas? I have read it, and I find it very suspect. For one thing, salvation is only open to women if they spiritually become male. Many would-be gospels and other 'inspired' books abound--Thomas is just one of them. I would encourage you to read them, if you are interested. Some have stories of Jesus turing clay birds into living birds, or cursing children He was playing with with various maladies, and numerous other points that I think betray their non-inspired nature.

I agree, Seeker, that we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by dogma. But we should likewise should not allow ourselves to be blinded by speculation.

In Christ,

Daniel

JVD

9th August 2004, 09:39 PM

Remember; if Christ and the Word are synonymous, then dying in the name of Christ is dying for the Word of God, and God does reward those who die in His name. Also remember, "the Kingdom of God is within you". (Luke 17:21) So having the Word of God within you, I mean TRULY having it within you, will propel you into a perpetual state of "heaven", where you will truly realize that everything that happens, happens according to the Will of God, and thus is perfectly good. Only those who truly know and understand the Word (such as Jesus) can realize this, which is why one such as Jesus can be willing to be crucified in God's name.

This all sounds vaguely familiar? I'm really not that familiar with mysticism but this seems similar perhaps to gnosticism?

And to be crucified (sacrificed) in God's name accomplishes nothing if you are a mere man. And would not result in a resurrection either.

rainbowprism

10th August 2004, 02:07 AM

Then what about Luke 18:19? And Matthew 4:10? Taken in context with Mark 12:29, these would seem to imply that Jesus is NOT God...

And then Jesus also says, "I and the Father are one." I'm surprised someone of your denom. is questioning this?

BInC

10th August 2004, 07:07 AM

Then what about Luke 18:19? And Matthew 4:10? Taken in context with Mark 12:29, these would seem to imply that Jesus is NOT God...
In Luke, He isn't never says He isn't God, but merely verifies that He and God are perfect. In Matthew, Jesus was quoting scripture to keep himself from falling into temptation. As a man, he still needed to worship God, otherwise he wouldn't make a very good example would he? In Mark, the statement he makes verifies the Trinity.

Seeker314

10th August 2004, 09:15 PM

Hi Seeker, thanks for your post. :wave: Thank you for taking the time to respond, DanielRB...

I disagree with your understanding of the 'formal establishment' of the Church. Numerous writings (outside of the New Testament) by both Christians and non-Christians attest to the existence of the Church before 325 AD. It may have not be structured exactly like the post-Nicean Church, but it most certainly existed as an organized entity (at times, organized entities as various schisms existed both before and after Nicea.)
That may be true, but it is the victors who get to write history, and in this case, it was the Romans who attempted to subsume the Christian movement by making it the STATE RELIGION, and this is exactly what Emperor Constantine attempted to do when he took Christianity and combined it with the pagan "holy days" of many other popular faiths. Indeed, Constantine took Christianity as it was from the time of Jesus (who was Jewish, remember) and changed the "traditionally" celebrated Sabbath Day (Saturday, still for Jewish practicioners) to "Sunday", in homage to his "god" Invictus Sol, the "Invincible Sun", and Roman Catholicism with all its historical offshoots still treats Sunday as the "holy day" today.

Do not forget, 2000 years of history has passed since the coming of Christ, and the Word has passed through the hands of sinner and saint since. While saints have done all they can to preserve the Word, there are foolish and evil men who have believed (and still believe) that the Word is too powerful to be known by all, and thus seek to ensure that the Word, in its entirety, does not come to light. Because if truth is knowledge, and knowledge is power, then truth is power. And we both know that the Word of God can never be untrue; God is Truth Incarnate. So it is the enemies of God that will seek to hide His Word from us, and it is fools who will fail to recognize the nature of the Word. Either way, it is only the wise man who seeks, and in seeking finds (put the words, "seek find", in the Bible Gateway website search engine, and you will see what the Bible has to say about those who seek)...

I strive to be Christ-like, even though I believe Him to be divine. I don't see how my belief bars me from emulating Him in all that I think, say and do. :scratch:
A wise person once said; "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right." Think about that, and tell me how that would affect your perception of emulating Jesus? Quite simply, if you think you are incapable of achieving Jesus' level of dedication and self-mastery, then you are incapable of doing so.

However, if one believes that Jesus is "merely" human, then one is permitted to believe that he or she can achieve the level of Jesus' dedication to God (whether or not he or she actually can is another matter, but at least now it is within the realm of hope and reason). In this scenario people can no longer be satisfied to sit back and say, "oh ya, Jesus is my personal saviour, I'm saved", and do nothing, or worse, feel justified in ignorance to do what they want, because they can't be like Jesus anyway (because he's divine), so, just as Emperor Constantine had hoped when he "adopted" the Christian faith, people would stop being Christian ("Christ-like" in Latin, because Christians had a tendency to demand rights, and complain about wrongs, which proved very annoying for corrupt governments), and in stopping trying to be like Jesus, people just went back to being people, happy that Jesus already died for them, or more correctly, people could now be "Christian" simply by being willing to claim that Jesus was their "personal saviour" and had died for THEIR sins as well.

And consider this; St. Augustine, in his Confessions, speaks of how he discovered a fragment of a letter written by Alexander the Great in the Library at Alexandria. This letter, written by Alexander the Great to his mother the "Queen Mother" of Macedonia, explaining how Alexander had captured and interrogated an Egyptian priest, named Leo, about the nature of the Egyptian gods. According to Alexander, Leo revealed that all the Egyptian gods had at one time been human! It was only after hundreds of years of "idol-worship" that there people were elevated to the level of "gods"; this is why the First Commandment is the First Commandment!

In the same way, I believe that the life and times (and message) of Jesus has been distorted over history into something much more palatable for lesser "men"; Jesus has given us the knowledge to become "the Son of Man"! It's a matter of making the choice to become "the Son of Man"; just that easy, and just that hard.

I agree that our preconceptions can color our view of Christ. However, if I accept the New Testament as the Word of God, then I should make every effort to understand what the original authors were trying to convey. If I believe that the New Testament contains some truth and some falsehood, then it becomes very difficult to decide what exactly is true and what is false. My choices of what is true and false then usually come down to what I want to believe.But this is being idealistic, like believing that the Hand of God came down from the sky to write the text we read literally, when in fact we know that the text was written by men, and although the fundamental meaning of the text is perfect, the external presentation of the text is not; it is according to some man, and this is why there are many religions, (ALL of which revere God ultimately) because some one from every distinct culture touched God and brought God to their people (remember, God is perfectly just, so He will NEVER play favourites; thus, God would send a prophet to every people of every place and time, but woe unto those who would ignore the true prophet of God...). Thus every text will require some sort of historical interpretation, as the writers would have used symbols relevant to their understanding.

Ultimately, all you have is belief, but faith was never meant to stand alone; reason offers considerations on where faith is appropriate (a "safe bet"). But I know with total confidence (because Math is perfect, sort of like a "divine alphabet"), I know that 2+2=11. What? Wait! I forgot to mention, "in a base 3 system" (It's all a matter of interpretation ;) )...

Now, you can broaden the discussion and state that I believe the New Testament to be the Word of God because of my preconceptions. I think that's a valid point. But when you try to disect the New Testament, there isn't much textual evidence--or any kind of historical evidence--to say "Jesus really did say, 'blessed are the peacemakers' but didn't really say 'I and my Father are One.'" This is where one must apply the litmus test of truth; experience. Attempt to live by the rules outlined within the Good Book, and see how your life changes. If it's for the better, then it's "good"; if it's for worse, then it's "bad", and I am willing to stake everything I own on the "safe bet" that living life like Jesus said we ought to would see all the controllable ailments of the world fall by the wayside, memories of younger race, the race of mere "men"...

As for being one with the Father; aren't we all? I mean, God created everything, has all power, all knowledge, is all good; is it logically possible to be anything other than being one with "the Father", aka God? If you have any power, it is only by His Grace, and it does not cease being His Power; rather, think of it as having been "lent" to you. So Jesus said nothing which you or I could not also honestly claim...

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I meant to imply that if Jesus claimed that He was somehow God's Son in a unique way, that He had been in God's presence, that He existed before Abraham, that He was greater than Moses--and many other things--and these things were not true, then why should His ethical teachings be correct?
And that's where the interpretation comes back; did you know that ten times as many "gospels" were commissioned by Emperor Constantine as actually appear in the Bible? Four gospels made it through "censorship customs", and were added to the Bible as "the New Testament", written in Greek. And even of those four, there are discrepancies between them; suddenly it becomes, "which Gospel to believe?"

Did you know that only 1 miracle is corroborated in all four gospels? (It's when Jesus feeds the five thousand)

Did you know that "the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"? (NIV, my emphasis) Not even the resurrection of Jesus is uniformly reported, arguably his single greatest miracle! What are we to make of this?

I would say, "we are too seek, and in so seeking find, and until one KNOWS one has the Truth, one should not rest from seeking until, in seeking Truth finds, and Truth, in being found, is KNOWN" (for no one seeks falsehood, there are many falsehoods for every Truth, and falsehoods are nothing but the mistaken assumptions of "men", but the Truth is indelible, pure reality, the stuff of God).

To be continued...

Seeker314

10th August 2004, 09:17 PM

Continued...

Remember the example that I used--Jesus' claim that we are blessed if we are persecuted for His name's sake. It's not just atheists who persecute Christians (indeed, historically atheists haven't persecuted Christians much at all until the 20th century); it's people like Saul of Tarsus, who believed that Christians lied about the person of God. Saul thought that he was obedient to God in persecuting the Christians.

But the Beatitudes were not meant to be taken singularly; you will only be persecuted as a Christian only if you are "poor in spirit, meek, mournful, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, and peacemakers" first (St. Augustine's Confessions, Book XI, i[1]). To be poor in spirit means to be humble, willing to admit you're only human and learn from you mistakes. To be meek is to be unassuming, harbouring no ill will for anyone. To be mournful is to be sympathetic, to be able to relate to other peoples' plight. To hunger and thirst for righteousness is to live for it, to only want and desire the Truth and Love of God. To be merciful is to "love thy enemy", for if God is Love, then Love truly does conquer all. To be pure in heart is to be ever-mindful of the Grace of God, constantly recognizing His Power and Beauty in all of Creation. To be peacemakers is to avoid hurting and killing one another in an active sense; it is not enough to not initiate war, a true Christian must also seek to prevent war, and "make peace". When one does all these things, then one will be noticed and earn the enmity of wicked men, who will do everything in their power to destroy such an obvious "Son of God".

Imagine for a minute that Jesus was totally wrong about who He was. Would God bless those who were persecuted for believing in Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. If people like Saul were correct, and Jesus was a deceiver and God was sorely displeased with Jesus' claims, then I think a curse rather than a blessing would be given to Jesus' followers. Sure, you could assume that God admired people who followed Jesus, even if Jesus was wrong--but on what would you base that assumption? Feelings? Personal preference on what God "should" be like?

Luckily for me, I don't have to imagine; I know that Jesus was right about who he was. I'm saying that those who lived to speak about him after him are not right about who he was. So Jesus was not "the deceiver", if one ever proved that the Bible was incorrect...

As for what God "should" be like; think about that, honestly think about it. Consider it with regard to math and science, geography and astronomy, EVERY bit of Creation, physical and mental (for God also created all ideas), and consider what God must be like as a being. If you want any advice on good reading material, try St. Aquinas' Summa Theologica, and On Being and Essence. Here's something I've learned in my philosophical studies, and it may or may not help:

Power does not corrupt. Power reveals corruption.

Remember this when you ponder the nature of God's power...

It seems as though you have a conception of what God is like. On what do you base this concept?

God is Being (St. Aquinas says the same thing, just uses a few more words to do it). I have being. Therefore, I know that God is. God says, "I AM WHO AM" (Exodus 3:14). I say, "I am", and I KNOW it is true. Therefore, I KNOW that God is. This is the fundamental basis of my conception of God.

You say that Jesus' ethical teachings have 'withstood the test of time'. In what way? How have they been shown to be correct? And what are the tests of reason and of faith?

Well, based on the fact that we're still discussing his ethical teachings 2000 years later, and people all over the world recognize and pursue the wisdom of his teachings, and even though no one has seen Jesus personally (faith), all have been affected by the impact of his teachings (reason).

I'm confused by your statement about Christ and the Word, because the passage of scripture that calls Christ the Word--John 1--also equates the Word with God Himself. If you believe this passage to be accurate, then does it not indicate that Jesus is greater than a mere man, but that He is also God the Creator of all?

Like I said earlier, God is Being, and at the time Jesus said it, he had (physical) being, so he and "the Father" were one. And insofar that Jesus' "spirit" is now spread throughout the land, he still has being, only it is purely spiritual being, and thus he and God still are one. And Jesus is greater than a "mere man", because he has made the conscious choice to be "Son of Man".

Furthermore, the passage of scripture you quoted--Luke 17:21--is better translated "the Kingdom of God is in your midst", i.e., in the person of Jesus.

This only reinforces what I mentioned earlier; we obviously have multiple interpretations to consider, so which do we believe (put our faith in)? We should probably believe in the most reasonable interpretation (reason)...

You bring up several issues here, Seeker. Are you familiar with the Gospel of Thomas? I have read it, and I find it very suspect. For one thing, salvation is only open to women if they spiritually become male. Many would-be gospels and other 'inspired' books abound--Thomas is just one of them. I would encourage you to read them, if you are interested. Some have stories of Jesus turing clay birds into living birds, or cursing children He was playing with with various maladies, and numerous other points that I think betray their non-inspired nature.

Again, interpretations; did you know that, in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says to his disciples: "Unless you can hate your father and your mother, you cannot love me." Sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it? But if you interpret it from a certain perspective, you'll see that Jesus is saying, "Unless you can cast aside the (erroneous) teachings of those you love, you cannot embrace the (true) teachings I offer", because you'll run into contradictions as you consider the two different views, and where most would stick to what their parents knew, the true seeker will cleave only to the Truth.

So I would urge you to go back to those readings, and try interpreting them in a figurative and symbolic frame of mind...

I agree, Seeker, that we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by dogma. But we should likewise should not allow ourselves to be blinded by speculation.

Well put, but remember this, there are two ways one can be blinded; by being lost in darkness, or by looking into the light...

In Christ,

Daniel
Your Brother in Christ,

Seeker314

DanielRB

10th August 2004, 10:02 PM

Hello again, Seeker. :wave:

Our posts are getting too long for me to reply in any detail, as you bring up quite a few points that all deserve attention.

I'd like for us to just focus on one point, if you don't mind. Would you like to pick that topic, or should I?

In Christ,

Daniel

Seeker314

11th August 2004, 06:12 PM

DanielRB

12th August 2004, 06:53 AM

Feel free to start where you will, and I will follow.
Ok, let's go back to your OP and discuss the implications if Jesus was 'merely' a human being. However, before that we must first need to establish common ground for discussion:

*What is your view of the New Testament? Does it contain errors in matters of doctrine and practice? (I'm not saying 'inerrant'--that's another discussion. For the sake of this discussion, I'm just looking for your view on matters of faith and doctrine.)

*What is your view on the proper interpretation of Scripture? Do you accept grammatical-historical exegesis, or do you use a different method?

I look forward to hearing from you, Seeker.

In Christ,

Daniel

Seeker314

13th August 2004, 04:59 PM

Ok, let's go back to your OP and discuss the implications if Jesus was 'merely' a human being. However, before that we must first need to establish common ground for discussion:

*What is your view of the New Testament? Does it contain errors in matters of doctrine and practice? (I'm not saying 'inerrant'--that's another discussion. For the sake of this discussion, I'm just looking for your view on matters of faith and doctrine.)
Mine is a very unorthodox view, stemming from a scholastic study of philosophy and psychology combined with an amateur pursuit of history and theology. Using philosophy I have sought pure reason, and thanks to such thinkers as Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz, I have realized the limits of reason and the necessity for faith. Using psychology I have been equipped with theories surrounding human behaviour, including such topics as cognition, perception, and motivation. Using history I have come to see the significance of certain humans in the "evolution" of humankind through time, people such as Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, and Jesus the Christ. Using theology, I have discovered the relationship between faith and reason, witnessing the insidious power of idolatry, the infinite power of the Word, and the healing power of Grace as embodied in the Son of Man!

Let's consider the word, "experience"; looking at vestigial grammatical structures from Latin, we can recognize the suffix "ex-", which usually intends an exterior, as opposed to an "in-"terior, see the relation? Yet have you ever heard the word "inperience"? What does the root of the word "-perience", mean in Latin? Experience is the consciousness of consciousness, the awareness of one's being, which only arises out of non-being, the perception of "that which I am not", the realization of the subject-object dichotomy. So I am confronted with "that which I am not", that which is beyond me, outside me, exterior to me.

Consider this chronologically (perceived as proceeding from birth onward); I seem to have an inborn ("instinctive") perception of the most primal needs necessary for my "subjective constitution" (Kant), the evident limitations of my being (such as the needs for air, water, and food), and its need for "that which I am not". It is the need to fulfill these fundamental requirements of my "subjective constitution" that determines the nature of my first actions, and accordingly, my first experiences.

The nature of experience can be divided into three parts; those experiences deemed by the experiencer to be "good" (whatever might actually be considered "good" is superficially subjective, but fundamentally objective, which is to say, universal to all humans qua (as) humans. Insofar that we all have the same "subjective constitution" as humans, we ought to know that all other humans have the same basic requirements as we do.

Accordingly, one is presented with a choice in how one deals with other humans (assuming one is absolutely devoid of any prior social contact, including being devoid of culture and religion for the sake of influencing choices), one must decide whether to enter into a (spoken or implicit) social contract, a contract that will usually involve the protection of fundamental rights (which are the right to do what one has to in order to preserve one's being) is (hopefully) understood. The parties meeting do not have to fear for their fundamental rights (strangely akin to the Ten Commandments...although thank God Jesus came and made it even easier!)...

Otherwise, one can choose (or be forced into choosing) the "state of nature", where no rights are recognized, and it is the "war of all against all". Every one is completely free; free to inflict, free to be inflicted upon, completely free. (Of course, one is ALWAYS free; it's just a matter of perception, and how one "sees" certain concepts in the mind, such as justice, religion, success, pleasure, etc., etc., all these concepts, regardless of the fact that not one of them has a physical being in and of itself, play a major role in the physical conduct of humans in their lives. So certain concepts will prevent people from doing certain things, and allow them to do certain others. For example, honour will prevent one from striking a surrendered foe, but genocide will ensure one strikes a surrendered foe with the coup de grace!)

As the prophets, up to and including Jesus, have all been saying the same thing; there is a certain way that humans OUGHT to live, and it is the wise one who recognizes the power of the Son of Man! If "Man" is the race of people walking the planet today, "the Son of Man" is anyone amongst that race who makes the willing choice to live for the Good of All, recognizing and respecting the fundamental rights of every other being on the planet! This is the next step in evolution; just as the Bible says, God is resting, it is up to us now, having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, to CHOOSE to become true and upright "Children of God", recognizing the inherent strength of good over evil! Good is all that which enhances and promotes Being, while Evil is all that which diminishes and threatens Being, and it is the wise one who sees the way one ought to be...

However, back to experience; given time for enough experiences, I eventually come to realize the nature of my senses, and am able to interpret and react to sensory input (<1 year, on average), coming to understand the dimensions of time (cause-and-effect) and space (distance and movement). In being able to perceive time and space, I can now come to learn my ability to influence time and space, as given by my "subjective constitution".

Depending on my early experiences, I may learn that it is advantageous to be spatially-oriented, focusing my consciousness on perceiving the nature of space over time. I exert my power in being able to influence distance and movement, demonstrating physical strength and dexterity as a result ("extraverted"). Conversely, I may learn from my early experiences that it is advantageous to be temporally-oriented, focusing my consciousness on perceiving the nature of time over space. I focus my understanding on being able to "perceive" the connections between effects occuring now and the "causes" that precede them, and I develop a "sixth sense", an imagination capable of simulating reality in "the mind's eye" or "third eye" ("introverted"). One goes on to become a great athlete or warrior; the other goes on to become a "genius" and a "visionary". One will become a scientist or a painter; the other will become a mathematician or a musician. Depending on experience...

So, although the type of being is subjective, the fact that being IS is universal, and this we call God (Remember; "I AM WHO AM", when God told Moses His Name, He told Moses that He Is All That Is. Taken in this light, we can see how Jesus was not lying when he said he was the "Son of God", because, ultimately, everything is a "child" of God).

Basically speaking, mine is a view that seeks to eliminate all contradiction and paradox (or at least coming to understand it, such as "change is constant"). Of course, it also helps that I've had what is known as a "religious" experience, an immanent awareness of the nature and majesty of Being aka God.

*What is your view on the proper interpretation of Scripture? Do you accept grammatical-historical exegesis, or do you use a different method?

I look forward to hearing from you, Seeker.

In Christ,

DanielI believe that, insofar that all Scripture is ultimately written by the hand of man, it is prone to misrepresentation. However, that is not to say that Scripture is lying or wrong, because anything borne of God cannot be false or untrue. Rather, the representation of the Scripture is prone to erroneous interpretation, literal translations being taken where symbolic translations were intended. Jesus himself uses parables to teach his wisdom, in order to avoid "casting pearls" of wisdom "before swine"; "he who has ears, let him hear"...

In sum, I have attempted to understand the nature of God's grand creation known as the universe in such a way that it also allows for an understanding of God Himself. If God is perfect (and He is), then everything He creates must likewise be perfect (not so easy to see, but still true). If you wish, I can elaborate on this, but suffice it to say that everything is just as it should be, according to the Will of God...

Your Brother in Christ,

Seeker314

riverpastor

13th August 2004, 06:07 PM

If Jesus never taught a word, but still shed His blood - the Truth that He is the sinless Son of God does make a difference.

People spill their blood everyday. Some even die as martyrs. But only One shed blood to enact Covenant with God in the heavenlies to bring us new life!

littlefishy

13th August 2004, 07:17 PM

I have no problems with Jesus claiming to be the Son of God; I have BIG problems with Jesus claiming to be "the only-begotten Son of God", because we are all God's children, and anyone who would claim otherwise does not understand the nature of God. God is the Father of ALL BEING, not just Jesus' being.
Seeker314
I'm new here, so forgive me if I don't get the quote right.

anyway, in response to this, we are children of God in the adopted sense.Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5-7. We have been CREATED by God, not begotten. To be begotten is to born of the same likeness. Like I can beget a human because I am one, but I cannot beget a car. I can however create a car. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God because he is born from the seed of the Holy Spirit. I guarantee that God is not your Father in that sense. Jesus was born with the same divine nature of the Father. You were created by Him, in his image. John 1:12 says "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." Your "child of God" status is dependant upon your faith in Him. Not just in His teachings, but in His being. That is why whether or not you recognize that Jesus is the Son of God is absolutely crucial. As my favorite bible teacher always sais, " your faith is only as good as that which you put your faith in".

Thank you for listening
Littlefishy

God Chaser

13th August 2004, 07:56 PM

DanielRB

15th August 2004, 08:13 AM

Hi Seeker, good to hear from you again. :wave: I appreciate the clarifications on your worldview.

Mine is a very unorthodox view, stemming from a scholastic study of philosophy and psychology combined with an amateur pursuit of history and theology. Using philosophy I have sought pure reason, and thanks to such thinkers as Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz, I have realized the limits of reason and the necessity for faith. Using psychology I have been equipped with theories surrounding human behaviour, including such topics as cognition, perception, and motivation. Using history I have come to see the significance of certain humans in the "evolution" of humankind through time, people such as Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, and Jesus the Christ. Using theology, I have discovered the relationship between faith and reason, witnessing the insidious power of idolatry, the infinite power of the Word, and the healing power of Grace as embodied in the Son of Man!I admire anyone who can wade through Kant. I myself haven't studied philosophy for years, and when I did study it I didn't do so in depth. So you are to be commended for doing so.

That said, I'm curious as to why you consider yourself Catholic, with such unorthodox views?

Let's consider the word, "experience"; looking at vestigial grammatical structures from Latin, we can recognize the suffix "ex-", which usually intends an exterior, as opposed to an "in-"terior, see the relation? Yet have you ever heard the word "inperience"? What does the root of the word "-perience", mean in Latin? Experience is the consciousness of consciousness, the awareness of one's being, which only arises out of non-being, the perception of "that which I am not", the realization of the subject-object dichotomy. So I am confronted with "that which I am not", that which is beyond me, outside me, exterior to me.I agree that experience is related to the subject-object dichotomy. However, I would caution you from reading too much into the etymology of words. Etymology can be a valuable tool, but some words have evolved with meanings quite different from what their etymology would suggest.

Consider this chronologically (perceived as proceeding from birth onward); I seem to have an inborn ("instinctive") perception of the most primal needs necessary for my "subjective constitution" (Kant), the evident limitations of my being (such as the needs for air, water, and food), and its need for "that which I am not". It is the need to fulfill these fundamental requirements of my "subjective constitution" that determines the nature of my first actions, and accordingly, my first experiences.Agreed; our most immediate needs are what we must address first. This goes along well with Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

The nature of experience can be divided into three parts; those experiences deemed by the experiencer to be "good" (whatever might actually be considered "good" is superficially subjective, but fundamentally objective, which is to say, universal to all humans qua (as) humans. Insofar that we all have the same "subjective constitution" as humans, we ought to know that all other humans have the same basic requirements as we do.Also agreed. This is an important observation, that the "subjective" is nearly always (perhaps always) a cover for universal needs experienced in particular situations.

Accordingly, one is presented with a choice in how one deals with other humans (assuming one is absolutely devoid of any prior social contact, including being devoid of culture and religion for the sake of influencing choices), one must decide whether to enter into a (spoken or implicit) social contract, a contract that will usually involve the protection of fundamental rights (which are the right to do what one has to in order to preserve one's being) is (hopefully) understood. The parties meeting do not have to fear for their fundamental rights (strangely akin to the Ten Commandments...although thank God Jesus came and made it even easier!)...[/QUOTE}

I'm not sure if I would equate the Ten Commandments with fundamental rights; they are more in line with responsibilities . Yes, certain of the commandments deal indirectly with such rights, such as the right not to be arbitrarily killed, but such rights as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc, are not addressed--or even spoken against. Having no other gods except Yahweh and not being able to speak against Yahweh's name put a great deal of limit on these rights. Jesus' two commandments--love God and love your neighbor--are more reflective of responsibilities; that is, the responsibility to love rather than the right to be loved.

[QUOTE]Otherwise, one can choose (or be forced into choosing) the "state of nature", where no rights are recognized, and it is the "war of all against all". Every one is completely free; free to inflict, free to be inflicted upon, completely free. (Of course, one is ALWAYS free; it's just a matter of perception, and how one "sees" certain concepts in the mind, such as justice, religion, success, pleasure, etc., etc., all these concepts, regardless of the fact that not one of them has a physical being in and of itself, play a major role in the physical conduct of humans in their lives. So certain concepts will prevent people from doing certain things, and allow them to do certain others. For example, honour will prevent one from striking a surrendered foe, but genocide will ensure one strikes a surrendered foe with the coup de grace!)Also agreed, although an important distinctions should be made between the "freedom" of a state of nature and "freedom" in a political sense. Freedom to do any phyiscally possible action is one thing; freedom to live one's life unmolested is another.

As the prophets, up to and including Jesus, have all been saying the same thing; there is a certain way that humans OUGHT to live, and it is the wise one who recognizes the power of the Son of Man! If "Man" is the race of people walking the planet today, "the Son of Man" is anyone amongst that race who makes the willing choice to live for the Good of All, recognizing and respecting the fundamental rights of every other being on the planet! This is the next step in evolution; just as the Bible says, God is resting, it is up to us now, having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, to CHOOSE to become true and upright "Children of God", recognizing the inherent strength of good over evil! Good is all that which enhances and promotes Being, while Evil is all that which diminishes and threatens Being, and it is the wise one who sees the way one ought to be...Many prophets existed, and yes, I would agree that they all spoke about the way humans ought to live, as they saw it. But there are important differences in the way they saw how humans should live.

On "the son of Man"; are you familiar with the usage of this phrase in intertestimental literature? In Daniel in our canon and in other apocalyptic works not in the canon, it is used as the image of a glorious, heavenly figure who appeared like a human being, but was also something greater. The cultural context of Jesus' day would have been aware of this idea of "the son of Man" and as a result, it is more than just "a human being."

As far as "God is resting"--well, Jesus speaks of His Father working (John 5:17).

However, back to experience; given time for enough experiences, I eventually come to realize the nature of my senses, and am able to interpret and react to sensory input (<1 year, on average), coming to understand the dimensions of time (cause-and-effect) and space (distance and movement). In being able to perceive time and space, I can now come to learn my ability to influence time and space, as given by my "subjective constitution".[/QUOTE}

I agree that we all can perceive and influence time and space, but forgive me, I may misunderstand you--it seems like a trivial observation.

[QUOTE]Depending on my early experiences, I may learn that it is advantageous to be spatially-oriented, focusing my consciousness on perceiving the nature of space over time. I exert my power in being able to influence distance and movement, demonstrating physical strength and dexterity as a result ("extraverted"). Conversely, I may learn from my early experiences that it is advantageous to be temporally-oriented, focusing my consciousness on perceiving the nature of time over space. I focus my understanding on being able to "perceive" the connections between effects occuring now and the "causes" that precede them, and I develop a "sixth sense", an imagination capable of simulating reality in "the mind's eye" or "third eye" ("introverted"). One goes on to become a great athlete or warrior; the other goes on to become a "genius" and a "visionary". One will become a scientist or a painter; the other will become a mathematician or a musician. Depending on experience...I agree that experience has a great deal to do with what we become, but I also believe that there are certain inherent characteristics--preferences or strengths--that can largely influence, even determine, our success (or lack thereof) in various endeavors.

So, although the type of being is subjective, the fact that being IS is universal, and this we call God (Remember; "I AM WHO AM", when God told Moses His Name, He told Moses that He Is All That Is. Taken in this light, we can see how Jesus was not lying when he said he was the "Son of God", because, ultimately, everything is a "child" of God).First, I think you misunderstand the Hebraic understanding of "I AM WHO I AM" in taking it in a pantheistic way. Second, it would quite trivial for Jesus to say He was the Son of God in this way. Though I know you disagree with the statement, Jesus is refered to as the "only begotton" Son of God (John 3:16)--a Being different from all others. Yes, in a sense all of us are God's children; but Jesus was so in a unique way.

Basically speaking, mine is a view that seeks to eliminate all contradiction and paradox (or at least coming to understand it, such as "change is constant"). Good luck on that! If you're able to do that, then I think you'll be the first one on the planet that does so. ;) Still, it is an admirable goal--but you might become frustrated if you are satisfied with nothing else.

Of course, it also helps that I've had what is known as a "religious" experience, an immanent awareness of the nature and majesty of Being aka God.This sounds like a pantheistic experience. I can't speak against your experience, but I can tell you that mine is different. May God grant both of us the wisdom to learn from each other.

I believe that, insofar that all Scripture is ultimately written by the hand of man, it is prone to misrepresentation. However, that is not to say that Scripture is lying or wrong, because anything borne of God cannot be false or untrue. Rather, the representation of the Scripture is prone to erroneous interpretation, literal translations being taken where symbolic translations were intended. Jesus himself uses parables to teach his wisdom, in order to avoid "casting pearls" of wisdom "before swine"; "he who has ears, let him hear"...I agree with your statement here. That is why I believe looking to the historical and grammatical context of Scripture is so important. We shouldn't try to take parable as history--but neither should we try to take history as merely parable.

In sum, I have attempted to understand the nature of God's grand creation known as the universe in such a way that it also allows for an understanding of God Himself. If God is perfect (and He is), then everything He creates must likewise be perfect (not so easy to see, but still true). If you wish, I can elaborate on this, but suffice it to say that everything is just as it should be, according to the Will of God...As you say, it's not so easy to see that a perfect God must create a perfect creation...I would like you to elaborate on this, if you would. I agree with your last statement, that all is in accord with the will of God. If that is what you mean by perfection, then I would agree. But I guess we should first define what perfection is and what it is not.

Your Brother in Christ,

Seeker314Thank you, Seeker. I look forward to our continuing dialogue.

In Christ,

Daniel

Seeker314

16th August 2004, 06:51 PM

Hi Seeker, good to hear from you again. I appreciate the clarifications on your worldview.

I admire anyone who can wade through Kant. I myself haven't studied philosophy for years, and when I did study it I didn't do so in depth. So you are to be commended for doing so.

That said, I'm curious as to why you consider yourself Catholic, with such unorthodox views?

I have labeled myself a Catholic only insofar that I was brought up as one; however, I would most likely be considered a Gnostic in the standard nomenclature.

I agree that experience is related to the subject-object dichotomy. However, I would caution you from reading too much into the etymology of words. Etymology can be a valuable tool, but some words have evolved with meanings quite different from what their etymology would suggest.

Good advice.

Agreed; our most immediate needs are what we must address first. This goes along well with Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

Yes, and with that in mind, remember the pinnacle of Maslow's hierarchy; self-realization. This is nothing less than the recognition that one has BEING, is fully aware of their potential, and has the self-mastery to realize it; in short, one recognizes that one is a Creation of God, and in so doing becomes a true Child of God...

Also agreed. This is an important observation, that the "subjective" is nearly always (perhaps always) a cover for universal needs experienced in particular situations.

Well, put it this way; everyone only knows the universe from their own perspective, ultimately. Even though others can report how they sense data, ultimately, one has only one's own perspective to rely upon. (As an interesting side-note, consider this; if the universe is infinitely spacious [and believe me, it is], and if the centre of an object is defined as that point contained within that object that is equidistant from the object's edges, then guess what? You are truly the centre of the universe, because you are infinitely distant from every edge of the universe! Of course, so is every other point in the universe, so it can truly be said that the universe does revolve around you, but don't feel TOO special; it revolves around every other being in the universe too. Nonetheless, only God could have built a universe so majestic that every being is the centre of the universe . Theories about "dark matter" are simply a symptom of humankind's inability to comprehend infinity as it pertains to the universe...)

So subjectivity, being "universal" , must necessarily be the ground of ethics, which is what we are discussing here; how people OUGHT to be...

I'm not sure if I would equate the Ten Commandments with fundamental rights; they are more in line with responsibilities . Yes, certain of the commandments deal indirectly with such rights, such as the right not to be arbitrarily killed, but such rights as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc, are not addressed--or even spoken [i]against. Having no other gods except Yahweh and not being able to speak against Yahweh's name put a great deal of limit on these rights. Jesus' two commandments--love God and love your neighbor--are more reflective of responsibilities; that is, the responsibility to love rather than the right to be loved.

But I am sure; if humans are to live together, then they must respect each other's rights as beings with "subjective constitutions", and accordingly, ALL must agree to live by a set of rules ("rights") that respects that subjectivity (in this way, we can see how God has "entrenched" these "laws" in the very fibre of our being; we are dependent, insofar that we are intrinsically bound by our subjective constitution, on these rules being honoured if society is to exist in any way, otherwise we are nothing more than animals, locked in a perpetual "state of nature" [Hobbes])...

Something that is implicit in everything said by Moses, starting right from Genesis, is that we are all "condemned to freedom" (Rousseau); if we didn't have a choice, then morality would be a moot concern. As it stands, Moses is doing nothing other than instructing us on how we OUGHT to exert our freedom, our free will. So freedom of speech and religion are implicitly entrenched in the very nature of our being; I am always making the choice (by act or omission of act) to say (or not say) certain things, and by worshipping (or not worshipping !) God (also known by many other names, but make no mistake, God is One)...

As for Jesus, he makes obvious that shared nature of our subjectivity; "Love thy neighbour AS THYSELF". So whatever rights you would seek to protect for yourself, so should you protect them in others, whichever others happen to be nearby (whether figuratively or literally). Thus they are "responsibilities" insofar that we are responsible for our own continued being. However, "rights" (as opposed to "wrongs") only occur in the context of morality, and accordingly, by loving others I will earn the right to be loved; such is the perfect beauty of God's creation...

Also agreed, although an important distinctions should be made between the "freedom" of a state of nature and "freedom" in a political sense. Freedom to do any phyiscally possible action is one thing; freedom to live one's life unmolested is another.

But ultimately, one is always free; it is just a matter of what social/spiritual/mental/conceptual constructs one subjects oneself to. So ideas such as justice, pleasure, discipline, power, etc. will affect one's behaviour, but they cannot change the fact that one is eternally free (this is the blessing and the curse of the Tree of Knowledge; just as it is the Tree of Death for having eaten of it, so too is it the Tree of Life for the potential it offers us)...

Many prophets existed, and yes, I would agree that they all spoke about the way humans ought to live, as they saw it. But there are important differences in the way they saw how humans should live.

Although related to the times in which they lived, I would argue that all the prophets were saying the same fundamental thing; know and honour God. In doing this, humankind would be assured His Blessing...

On "the son of Man"; are you familiar with the usage of this phrase in intertestimental literature? In Daniel in our canon and in other apocalyptic works not in the canon, it is used as the image of a glorious, heavenly figure who appeared like a human being, but was also something greater. The cultural context of Jesus' day would have been aware of this idea of "the son of Man" and as a result, it is more than just "a human being."

I am not familiar with the phrase as you refer to it, but what you say does not differ appreciably from how I understand the phrase; to choose to live for the race rather than oneself would make oneself greater than the common person, yet one would still appear the same to those around him/her. It is only in what he/she DID that would mark them as "greater" than others...

As far as "God is resting"--well, Jesus speaks of His Father working (John 5:17).

True, and in my interpretation of God qua Being, God never rests. I was using the term in (what I believe to be) Moses' sense; God no longer makes our choices for us, He is resting, and now we make (and live or die by) our choices.

To be continued...

Seeker314

16th August 2004, 06:51 PM

I agree that we all can perceive and influence time and space, but forgive me, I may misunderstand you--it seems like a trivial observation.

Indeed it does, doesn't it! However, consider this; Kant says in his Critique of Pure Reason that, "the words 'I think' must be able to precede every one of our [mental] representations." That, too, seems trivial, doesn't it? But think about it; how does the words, "I think", change the truth-value of any statement?

"It is raining outside."

"I think, it is raining outside."

What does it do to the statement, to add "I think"? It forces us to recognize the subjective nature of existence and experience; my statement is an expression of my belief, it is NOT NECESSARILY knowledge. So to add "I think" only reminds us of the presence of (and need for) faith in our daily lives. In this way we can see how even the most hard-nosed empirical scientist must be willing to admit that ALL he knows is based on his faith in his senses (which were ultimately given to him by God). Accordingly, bringing up the dimensions of time and space is only to remind us of our subjective constitution, that space and time may be the beginning of experience, but they definitely are NOT the end of experience, and that there are components of our being that lie beyond time and space, not the least of which is God...

I agree that experience has a great deal to do with what we become, but I also believe that there are certain inherent characteristics--preferences or strengths--that can largely influence, even determine, our success (or lack thereof) in various endeavors.

True, but our "inherent characteristics" will only determine our success by how closely they adhere to Truth, "reality". If I refuse to believe in gravity because I can't see it, I would never leave the house for fear that I might begin falling UP into space! Conversely, if I believe that I am somehow favoured by God to be invulnerable to the constraints of time and space, I might be willing to drive into a brick wall at top speed! (Why do you think Jesus would not be tempted by Satan to jump unto the rocks?) Therefore, insofar that God is Truth is Being, only by how well we know God can we hope to succeed at anything...

First, I think you misunderstand the Hebraic understanding of "I AM WHO I AM" in taking it in a pantheistic way. Second, it would quite trivial for Jesus to say He was the Son of God in this way. Though I know you disagree with the statement, Jesus is refered to as the "only begotton" Son of God (John 3:16)--a Being different from all others. Yes, in a sense all of us are God's children; but Jesus was so in a unique way.

Unfortunately, you have misunderstood me in thinking I propose God qua Being in a pantheistic way; God is One, and Being is the infinite zeroes that comprise that One (mathematically speaking, divide One by Zero and see what the answer is! ). Just as we could not be without God, God could not be said to be truly infinite without us; it's a hard concept to get your head around, I know, but it relates back to infinity...

As for Jesus being the "only begotten Son of God", consider this; if God is perfect, then God is also perfectly just. If God is perfectly just, then it is not permissible for God to favour one child above all others; that would be arbitrary and unjust. Accordingly, to think Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is to think that God is not just! This is just one of the many contradictions that fledgling "Holy Roman Empire" had to deal with in formulating the Nicene Creed, and do you know how they dealt with it? By declaring anyone who argued this point of view a "heretic" and feeding them to the lions! All of the great "heresies" were cults that tried to revive the legacy of Jesus as a man so as to bring his accomplishments back within the realm of possibility for all of us to strive for, but the Roman Emperor didn't want people being like Jesus (how can a government remain corrupt if its people are constantly striving to be better?!), so he made the Word his to manipulate as he saw fit, including relying of dogma and blind faith to enforce his new "word". Luckily for us, the Truth of Jesus' words could not be twisted, and they have persevered even unto us today. However, if they could not twist the words, then they would twist the man, making him a "god" so that none would could ever hope to achieve what he did, and all could lie complacent, knowing that "Jesus died for their sins"...

Good luck on that! If you're able to do that, then I think you'll be the first one on the planet that does so. Still, it is an admirable goal--but you might become frustrated if you are satisfied with nothing else.

Well, I'm doing my best, and whether or not you realize it, you're helping me! And believe me, I appreciate it...

This sounds like a pantheistic experience. I can't speak against your experience, but I can tell you that mine is different. May God grant both of us the wisdom to learn from each other.

Quite the opposite; I experienced the grand unity of all Being that is God. The differentiation is merely appearance; in fact, we are all One.

I agree with your statement here. That is why I believe looking to the historical and grammatical context of Scripture is so important. We shouldn't try to take parable as history--but neither should we try to take history as merely parable.

Very true; discretion is definitely required in reading history, whether political or religious in nature. With this in mind, EVERYTHING one is exposed to ought to be considered carefully; remember, insofar that whatever one hears must be coming from another, the representations must be preceded by the term, "He/She thinks"...

As you say, it's not so easy to see that a perfect God must create a perfect creation...I would like you to elaborate on this, if you would. I agree with your last statement, that all is in accord with the will of God. If that is what you mean by perfection, then I would agree. But I guess we should first define what perfection is and what it is not.

Leibniz was mocked for this, saying that this is "the best of all possible worlds", but it is true. From the very first, "Let there be Light", all has proceeded by the rules God laid down from the beginning (ie. cause-and-effect, gravity, matter and energy, etc.), and in this way was Jesus speaking the truth when he said, "Before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) God intended absolutely everything that has happened from "Let there be Light!"

"But," you ask, "what about free will?" Good question. Be assured, you are free in every choice that you make, and you cannot frustrate God's plan, but you are not free to be any other being than who you are, and in that way, you are not free. Put simply, "I am free to be me, but no other!" So I am free to be Seeker314, but I will ultimately suffer the fate that Seeker314 is meant to suffer, and not" by worrying can [I] add one hour to [my] life"! (Matthew 6:27)

Thank you, Seeker. I look forward to our continuing dialogue.

In Christ,

Daniel

Thank you, Daniel.

Your Brother in Christ,

Seeker314

DanielRB

17th August 2004, 07:27 AM

Hi again, Seeker! :wave:

Indeed it does, doesn't it! However, consider this; Kant says in his Critique of Pure Reason that, "the words 'I think' must be able to precede every one of our [mental] representations." That, too, seems trivial, doesn't it? But think about it; how does the words, "I think", change the truth-value of any statement?

"It is raining outside."

"I think, it is raining outside."

What does it do to the statement, to add "I think"? It forces us to recognize the subjective nature of existence and experience; my statement is an expression of my belief, it is NOT NECESSARILY knowledge. So to add "I think" only reminds us of the presence of (and need for) faith in our daily lives. In this way we can see how even the most hard-nosed empirical scientist must be willing to admit that ALL he knows is based on his faith in his senses (which were ultimately given to him by God). Accordingly, bringing up the dimensions of time and space is only to remind us of our subjective constitution, that space and time may be the beginning of experience, but they definitely are NOT the end of experience, and that there are components of our being that lie beyond time and space, not the least of which is God...

I agree that all of our knowledge can be preferenced with "I think..." The nature of our interpretation of experience is such that we can misinterpret.

True, but our "inherent characteristics" will only determine our success by how closely they adhere to Truth, "reality". If I refuse to believe in gravity because I can't see it, I would never leave the house for fear that I might begin falling UP into space! Conversely, if I believe that I am somehow favoured by God to be invulnerable to the constraints of time and space, I might be willing to drive into a brick wall at top speed! (Why do you think Jesus would not be tempted by Satan to jump unto the rocks?) Therefore, insofar that God is Truth is Being, only by how well we know God can we hope to succeed at anything...

I interpret the temptation of Christ different than you do. It seems as though you believe that Jesus resisted the temptation because He sensibly believed that throwing Himself from the pinacle of the temple would kill Him. However, His response indicated that is would be wrong to put God to the test. The difference may seem subtle, but I believe it to be important.

Unfortunately, you have misunderstood me in thinking I propose God qua Being in a pantheistic way; God is One, and Being is the infinite zeroes that comprise that One (mathematically speaking, divide One by Zero and see what the answer is! ). Just as we could not be without God, God could not be said to be truly infinite without us; it's a hard concept to get your head around, I know, but it relates back to infinity...

Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding you, but my understanding of God is different. Although logically one might point out that if there is something that is not God (for example, myself), then God is diminished by whatever He is not. But I do not believe that God is infinite as an abstract or an infinite being as a subject. I believe that certain characteristics of God are infinite--His power, His temporal existance, etc--but there are some aspects of God's existence that are not infinite. This may sound unorthodox, but I think anyone who is orthodox will recognize to say otherwise would inevitably lead you to pantheism or monism.

As for Jesus being the "only begotten Son of God", consider this; if God is perfect, then God is also perfectly just. If God is perfectly just, then it is not permissible for God to favour one child above all others;

This assumes we understand what 'perfect justice' is. Since we are imperfectly just, our understanding of justice is likely to also be imperfect.

that would be arbitrary and unjust. Accordingly, to think Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is to think that God is not just!

But to say that my left arm is not your left arm is neither just nor unjust, it is a statement of fact. If Jesus is ontologically related to God in a unique way--like my left arm is to me--then this shows no particular favortism. Of course, in a monistic/pantheistic worldview, then the distinction between my arm or your arm (or my body and the rocks below the pinnacle of the temple) is an illusion.

This is just one of the many contradictions that fledgling "Holy Roman Empire" had to deal with in formulating the Nicene Creed, and do you know how they dealt with it?

Just a point of clarification: the "Holy Roman Empire" was founded upon the death of Charlemagne. This was centuries after Nicea.

By declaring anyone who argued this point of view a "heretic" and feeding them to the lions! All of the great "heresies" were cults that tried to revive the legacy of Jesus as a man so as to bring his accomplishments back within the realm of possibility for all of us to strive for, but the Roman Emperor didn't want people being like Jesus (how can a government remain corrupt if its people are constantly striving to be better?!), so he made the Word his to manipulate as he saw fit, including relying of dogma and blind faith to enforce his new "word".

Though there could be a political advantage in particular theological view, it does not follow that this invalidates it.

Luckily for us, the Truth of Jesus' words could not be twisted, and they have persevered even unto us today. However, if they could not twist the words, then they would twist the man, making him a "god" so that none would could ever hope to achieve what he did, and all could lie complacent, knowing that "Jesus died for their sins"...

I disagree with the idea that if Jesus is divine, then we all must assume that His work--His sinless life, miracles, etc--are outside the realm of human possibility. Theologically, although I believe Jesus to be fully God and fully human, I believe that His perfection was both in His divinity and in His humanity. His temptation--that He sucessfully resisted--was resisted as a man and not as God, because God cannot be tempted (James 1:13; see also Hebrews 4:15). It is a perfectioin of which we are invited to partake, as He said "greater works than these" (John 14:12). In our character, we are to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). After all, Jesus called us to perfection--completeness, maturity--Matt 5:48--even to the perfection of God. Paul spoke of God, in every situation, making it possible to resist temptation (1 Cor 10:13)

Well, I'm doing my best, and whether or not you realize it, you're helping me! And believe me, I appreciate it...

As you are helping me, my friend. I appreciate the dialogue.

Quite the opposite; I experienced the grand unity of all Being that is God. The differentiation is merely appearance; in fact, we are all One.

Perhaps we have a semantic difficulty. How do you see this as not a pantheistic experience? Would you describe yourself as a monist rather than a pantheist?

Very true; discretion is definitely required in reading history, whether political or religious in nature. With this in mind, EVERYTHING one is exposed to ought to be considered carefully; remember, insofar that whatever one hears must be coming from another, the representations must be preceded by the term, "He/She thinks"...

Agreed; history is far from an exact science.

Leibniz was mocked for this, saying that this is "the best of all possible worlds", but it is true. From the very first, "Let there be Light", all has proceeded by the rules God laid down from the beginning (ie. cause-and-effect, gravity, matter and energy, etc.), and in this way was Jesus speaking the truth when he said, "Before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) God intended absolutely everything that has happened from "Let there be Light!"

I understand what you meant, now that you quoted Leibniz. Yes, it stands to reason that if God has our best interests in mind, then this is "the best of all possible worlds". In this, it could be said to be perfect in a sense. However, paradoxically enough, if this the best of all possible worlds includes beings with freedom to act contrary to God, then the perfection includes a good deal of potential--and often actualized--disharmony on a certain level. Ultimately, this hisharmony might be part of a greater symphony of which we cannot hear (yet); but nonetheless, the mere fact of our ignorance of this greater plan shows that this perfection may not be what we think of when we define perfection. In otherwords, the best of all possible worlds contains creatures which are ignorant that it is so; so the best of all possible worlds contains ignorance and limited knowledge.

"But," you ask, "what about free will?" Good question. Be assured, you are free in every choice that you make, and you cannot frustrate God's plan, but you are not free to be any other being than who you are, and in that way, you are not free. Put simply, "I am free to be me, but no other!" So I am free to be Seeker314, but I will ultimately suffer the fate that Seeker314 is meant to suffer, and not" by worrying can [I] add one hour to [my] life"! (Matthew 6:27)

Agreed; we are free to act according to our nature...but that nature, as much as we might protest, is not self-chosen.

Thank you, Daniel.

And thank you, friend.

Your Brother in Christ,

Seeker314In Christ,

Daniel

DanielRB

17th August 2004, 07:30 AM

hey...since this was intitled "knowlege of Jesus" i would expect knowllegable people too look at the posts...soo i have a question for those biblicly inclined people:P>> I need a Verse on "encounter with god"...or along those lines ...is there even one...please help if u can that would be appreciated...God Bless
Hi God Chaser! :wave:

I'm not sure if I know of any verse that has the words "encounter with God", but perhaps something like Paul's encounter on Damascus Road might help? Its found in Acts 9.

In Christ,

Daniel

Seeker314

17th August 2004, 08:57 PM

And then Jesus also says, "I and the Father are one." I'm surprised someone of your denom. is questioning this?
Yes, and according to my understanding of God as Being, in being human I am being, and thus I am an infinitesimal speck of God (more generally referred to as one's soul)...

I was brought up Roman Catholic, but the paradoxes and contradictions inherent to the faith (and all Christianity, to a lesser degree) caused me to seek God on a personal level, and just as God promises in Bible, I found. I have been fortunate enough ("by the Grace of God") to have a "mystical" experience, a moment where all the illusions are recognized for what they are, and it is just the Majesty of God, the "oneness with the universe", that is apparent. That, in conjunction with my studies, has unequivocally proven to me the Existence of God and the Glory of His Word. I worship God, and I thank Him daily for the giving me Jesus as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", the exemplar by whom I ought to measure myself with in "seeking" to know the Word, but I do not "worship" Jesus. In my mind, Jesus was and always will be the greatest "son of God", but he is not the "only-begotten Son of God".

I have always been able to relate closest to the writings of Meister Eckhart, William Law, and Gnostics of various other faiths. Their (seemingly) paradoxical statements resonate with meaning for me, making subtly evident the nature of God's Majesty. I have learned great secrets in my study of philosophy and religion, some of which some parties would rather not see return to the light of day...

"He who has ears, let him hear"...

Seeker314

Seeker314

17th August 2004, 09:18 PM

This all sounds vaguely familiar? I'm really not that familiar with mysticism but this seems similar perhaps to gnosticism?

And to be crucified (sacrificed) in God's name accomplishes nothing if you are a mere man. And would not result in a resurrection either.But I think you're taking it out of context to say, "And to be crucified (sacrificed) in God's name accomplishes nothing if you are a mere man"; you are basically saying that all the saints and martyrs of the past accomplished nothing with their deaths; is that what you mean to say?

Jesus wasn't simply crucified; he was the leader of an increasingly powerful cult of devout followers. Try this for putting it in perspective: imagine the head of your Church (the Pope, in my case) being kidnapped and tortured unless he recanted his faith, and his torture was made public as an example to all those who would embrace the same faith; if he died from his torture having remained true to his faith the whole time, wouldn't the faith of his followers be increased one hundred fold? If he went through agonizing pain espousing and embracing the principles he had preached for so long (3 years in Jesus' case), don't you think followers of the that faith would feel almost obligated to try and take it to the same level?

Furthermore, if you consider the concept of metaphorical resurrection, rather than literal, it all suddenly makes very possible and reasonable sense; remember the story of Lazarus and how Jesus (supposedly) resurrected Lazarus? If you read it carefully, it says nothing about Lazarus actually coming back to life; rather, Jesus tells Lazarus to come out (a metaphor referring to Jesus' eulogy of one he loved most dearly), and "the dead man came out", Lazarus is "brought back" in the minds of the people, Jesus does Lazarus great honour by giving him an unforgettable eulogy, speaking of the power of spirit and how Lazarus must have somehow affected the life of every mourner there (else, why were they there?), and in so doing, reminds each of them how they carry Lazarus' spirit with them in their lives, and so Lazarus is only dead physically, he is not dead spiritually, and thus he lives on.

Accordingly, consider the verses of Mark 16:9-20; these are the verses that detail Jesus' resurrection in three literal days in the Book of Mark. However, in older, more reliable, transcripts of the Book of Mark, these verses do not exist. Put another way, Mark never wrote that Jesus came back in three literal days, just as the universe was not created in seven literal days (another analogy used by Moses to establish the work-week; prior to the liberation of the Jews, they were slaves and worked seven out of seven days [ie. every single day!]. However, after they were free, Moses entrenched in the Mosaic Law the work-week so that everyone would always have at least one "holy-day" in every seven; who would dare to try and prove themselves greater than God by working seven out of seven days?).

So there are ways to see the Bible that fit far better with "standard reality", that do not diminish the need for faith but rather they make the need evident, ways that may challenge reason but do not contradict it. There may be only one Truth, but there are infinite perspectives from which to see it...

"He who has ears, let him hear"...

Seeker314