Jesus is God?

[macabresoul]

So for the second time today, i've seen this bumper sticker on someones car that says, 'Jesus is God'.

Now I'm not part of any religion right now, but I went to a christian school for 6 years when I was a kid. I don't know where this came from, but i've never heard Jesus being referred to as God. I mean, where in the bible does it even mention that Jesus is God.

I think that even if you take everything out of context in the bible, there is no way you could say Jesus is God. Maybe I was absent that day.

:dubious:

[Polycarp]

Well, macabresoul, for the most part it's implicit in the recognition of Jesus as kyrios -- "Lord," an epithet that a Jew would consider proper only as addressed to God Himself, in John's identification of Jesus as logos theoi -- the active Word of God creating and recreating the world -- and in Jesus Himself's use of ego eimi -- the long-form construction of "I am" which was the answer God gave Moses and hence improper for a Greek-speaking Jew to use in any other context. But there are a few Biblical passages that address the identity of Jesus with God (or, technically, with one of the three Persons of the Godhead):

A week later [then when Thomas doubted the reports of the Resurrection] the disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut Jesus came and stood among them and said "Peace be with you."27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." (John 20: 25-29)

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, 12 training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:11-13)

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Well, macabresoul, for the most part it's implicit in the recognition of Jesus as kyrios -- "Lord," an epithet that a Jew would consider proper only as addressed to God Himself

I'm curious, Polycarp. I'm wondering what the Hebrew origin of the root of the word that you are translating as "Lord" is. If it is the Hebrew root aleph-daled-nun, then you may be mistaken. That root (often translated as "Master") is used in the Hebrew Bible to refer both to God and to earthly masters (see Genesis 32:5 and 33:8). I'm curious to know what the Greek term used in the Sept. is for "Master" (or Lord) in those verses. If it is kyrios, then that would indicate that Jesus' contemporaries thought of him as a "master" (i.e., a learned scholar, someone to be respected), but not necessarily as Divine.

Zev Steinhardt

[whatsallthisabout]

To add to what Polycarp said, I think the Holy Trinity concept places Jesus as God as well. Many will say that Jesus is the earthly emodiment of God. Whether that's true, I don't really know.

[hilltopper]

If you went to Christian school for 6 years than the concept of the Trinity should not be totally foreign to you. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ring any bells at all? It refers to all three being the same Person.

[JerseyDiamond]

AMPLIFIED.

John 1
1 IN THE beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2 He was present originally with God.
3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

[b]John 8
58 Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.

and what Poly said :D

John 20
28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and trusted and relied on Me.


Titus 2
13 Awaiting and looking for the [fulfillment, the realization of our] blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One),

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by hilltopper
If you went to Christian school for 6 years than the concept of the Trinity should not be totally foreign to you. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ring any bells at all? It refers to all three being the same Person.
The trinity is not in the Bible. Macabre was asking specifically for a Biblical quote, not a traditional extropolation.

I think the "Logos" passage from John is pretty much the most explicit assertion for Christ's divinity in the NT. Titus is pretty straight on too.

[Artemius]

{Opinion}

There is an old story from India about the God, Brahma, who was all alone. Nothing existed but Brahma, and he was completely bored. Brahma decided to play a game, but there was no one to play the game with. So he created a beautiful goddess, Maya, just for the purpose of having fun. Once Maya existed and Brahma told her the purpose of her existence, she said, “Okay, let’s play the most wonderful game, but you have to do what I tell you to do.” Brahma agreed, and following Maya’s instructions, he created the whole universe. Brahma created the sun and the stars, the moon and the planets. Then he created life on earth: the animals, the oceans, the atmosphere, everything.

Maya said, “How beautiful is this world of illusion you created. Now I want you to create a kind of animal that is so intelligent and aware that it can appreciate your creation.” Finally Brahma created humans, and after he finished the creation, he asked Maya when the game was going to start.

“We will start right now,” she said. She took Brahma and cut him into thousands of teeny,tiny, pieces. She put a piece inside every human and said, “Now the game begins! I am going to make you forget what you are, and you are going to try to find yourself!” Maya created the dream, and still, even today, Brahma is trying to remember who he is. Brahma is there inside you, and Maya is stopping you from remembering what you are.

It is my opinion that trying to remember who/what you are is what Jesus referred to as “awakening” and that god is everywhere and especially inside all of us. There is no need to look no further than ourselves. That upon awakening, one reclaims one’s divinity. Therefore Jesus is God just as you and I are as well.

[macabresoul]

I meant 7th Day Adventists school for 6 years, whoops. But no, I was never taught about the Trinity.


I never thought, nor have I heard, that Jesus was divine. Are there certain religions that hold Jesus as god and others that just refer to him as nothing more then the son of God?

[Bricker]

With all due respect, macabresoul, that's a pretty big thing to have missed. While Jesus as one aspect of the Lord God Almighty is not by any means universally believed, it's... well, it's a pretty famous idea, and the basis of Christianity.

It certainly is a central tenet of the Seventh-Day Adventists: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things.

From the Adventist Church Official Website (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/index.html).

- Rick

[Zenmaster Mojo]

Jesus never says anywhere in the Bible that people should worship or pray to him.

He says that people should worship & pray to God.

Yet most Christians do this nonetheless.


I had a related argument recently on the subject of whether or not conversion to Christianity was necessary to get into heaven. My opponent (like many members of Evangelical denominations) claimed that it was and that good works while on earth counted for nothing, if one did not believe that "Jesus is Lord".

Here's what I posted back to him (I think it bears repeating in the context of this debate):


In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan didn't convert and no one ever suggested that he should. He was held up as a moral exemplar. But, according to your religion he would still go to hell if he didn't convert???

Jesus told the partable in response to the question: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Luke 10:25

Jesus said that correct answer to this question was:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself." Luke 10:27

He was then asked to clarify who one should consider to be their neighbor. So he told the parable. He used for his example a Samaritan (because as was clear to his audience) they were enemies of the Jews at that time.

He then ends the parable and further clarifies the answer to the mans original question (i.e. What must I do to inherit eternal life?) by saying: Go and do likewise. Luke 10:37

So, the Samaritan stays a Samaritan, and does not convert, yet he (and EVERYONE who live their lives in such a selfless manner) according to Jesus will inherit eternal life regardless of religious affiliation. A careful reading of this passage yields no alternative explanation.

Jesus did not say convert & then act like this Samaritan man. Furthermore the man asking the question who Jesus tells to go and do likewise was himself a Jewish scholar. We do not know that he converted either.

The man asked 2 questions:
1) what must I do to inherit eternal life?
AND a follow-up 2)who is my neighbor

Jesus final response go and do likewise does not answer the second question. It is the final answer to the first question: what must I do to inherit eternal life? http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+10:25&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

Furthermore, Jesus tells him to go, he doesn't say, "Oh wait, one more thing you have to do, accept me as your personal Lord & Savior too."

Its a direct question. And, a direct answer. The man quotes scripture. Jesus tells him he is correct & then provides a parable to give an example of someone living their life in accordance to such precepts.

This idea that the only way to heaven is through Jesus is nonsense. Jesus answered that question fully
and directly in Luke.

You misread statements like:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No ne comes to the Father except through me.

Some claim that the phase through me should be interpretted as through my teachings, by way of the path I have preached to you, or according to my example.

Others claim that Jesus never said these things at all - that they are later insertions into the text - no doubt to get people to convert to their Church rather than follow some other faith.

But, however YOU might like to interpret them. The parable above was a direct response to a direct question, its context is crystal clear.

You Christians should read your Bibles in context once in a while rather than just pulling out quotes out of context. You pervert the essential techings of your religion through your ignorance and then spread your perverted religion, which you call Christianity, to others. You dont understand the basic tenets of your own Faith.

[lynn73]

Originally posted by JerseyDiamond
AMPLIFIED.

John 1
1 IN THE beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2 He was present originally with God.
3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

[b]John 8
58 Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.

and what Poly said :D

John 20
28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and trusted and relied on Me.


Titus 2
13 Awaiting and looking for the [fulfillment, the realization of our] blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One),

Thanks, jersey! Plus Colossians 2:8-9

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[Zenmaster Mojo]

Loved the story Artemius. Thanks. Well told too. :)

The idea of the universe as a cosmic hide-and-seek game I find infinitely preferable to Christian imageries of God vs. Satan doing battle.

I liked your answer to the question too:
"Therefore Jesus is God just as you and I are as well."

Makes me wonder why even though it says in the Bible that we are all children of god that Jesus is always said to God's only Son. But, then of course he is often said to be God too.

Also, it makes me wonder, if there have ever been (or currently are) any Christian sects that teach this concept (so common in the East) that "I am God" That the divine is in all things and all people and need only be discovered/realized.

[Polycarp]

Zev, I was addressing the usage in New Testament Greek, and the cultural usage I've been given to understand was customary at that time and place -- usages like saying "Heaven" as an euphemism for saying "God. I'm aware that ADN and even JH were elements of names and had secular usages as well as reference to God. Question: would the form adonai, which I gather translates as "my Lord," ever be used in addressing a royal, noble, or governing human person?

In any case, I have no cite but memory of years-ago studies informs me that a devout Diaspora Jew speaking Greek would avoid kyrios and ego eimi out of respect for the Divine Name and Titles. Perhaps Diogenes or another person with more recent and in-depth background on koine and First Century culture might pin this down as accurate or not?

[Zenmaster Mojo]

I think the concept of the Trinity is just nonsense.

I don't think Jesus mentions the word.

Read somewhere that the mystical notion of 3-in-1, 1-in-3 can actually be traced to the worship of Apollo and other Roman deities.

Have also read that its origin is Egyptian or some other pagan religion of the time and was originally the concept of the Holy Family or first family - i.e. Father god, Mother goddess, and their Son another god that comes from the union of the two.

But, Christianity was derived from a monotheistic religion with no goddess figure (although it may argued that the Catholic church later brought the goddess imagery back to the religion through the Holy Mother Mary). But to the early church, adding Jesus, gives two parishoners two figures to worship - and 2 is an incovenient number. Three is better - a mystical number in many faiths. So, they made the two into a Trinity patterned after other popular religions of the day & region. Many people who were converted to Christianity would have already been familiar with the concept & 3-in-1 imagery at local Roman temples.

Anyone else heard anything on this theory of the origin of the Trinity in Christian thought?

[whatsallthisabout]

While the word "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible, that does not mean that it does not exist. It is spoken of implicitly many times in the Bible:


http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/trinity.htm

"While there is no explicit statement in the Old Testament affirming the Triunity, we can confidently say that the Old Testament not only allows for the Triunity, but also implies that God is a triune Being in a number of ways:

(1) The name Elohim, translated God, is the plural form of El. While this is what is called a plural of plenitude pointing to the power and majesty of God, it certainly allows for the New Testament revelation of the Triunity of God.

(2) There are many instances where God uses the plural pronoun to describe Himself (see Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8).

(3) In the creation account, both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are seen in the work of creation. It is stated that God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1), but that it was the Holy Spirit who moved over the earth to infuse it with life in the sense of protecting and participating in the work of creation (Gen. 1:2).

(4) Writing about the Messiah, Isaiah reveals Him to be equal with God, calling Him the “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” (Isa. 9:6).

(5) Several passages reveal a distinction of Persons within the Godhead.

In Psalm 110:1, David demonstrates there is a distinction of Persons between “LORD,” the one speaking, and the one addressed called by David, “my Lord.” David was indicating the Messiah was no ordinary king, but his own Lord, Adoni (my Lord), one who was God Himself. So God the first Person addresses God the second Person. This is precisely Peter’s point when He quotes this Psalm to show the resurrection of the Messiah was anticipated in the Old Testament.
The Redeemer (who must be divine, Isa. 7:14; 9:6) is distinguished from the Lord (Isa. 59:20).
The Lord is distinguished from the Lord in Hosea 1:6-7. The one speaking here is Yahweh, the Lord, yet, note the statement in verse 7, “I will have compassion … and deliver them by the Lord their God.”
The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord in a number of passages (Isa. 48:16; 59:21; 63:9-10).
(6) In the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, God made it clear that the One who would be born of the virgin would also be Immanuel, God with us.

(7) Two other passages which imply the Trinity are Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1. In Isaiah 48:16 all three Persons are mentioned and yet seen as distinct from each other. See also Gen. 22:15-16."

[Bricker]

Zenmaster:

If your interpretation is correct, what do you make of the passage in which Christ asks Peter who people are saying the Messiah is? Peter replies that there are many different beliefs; some say John the Baptist; some, Jeremiah; some, Elijah.

Christ then asks Peter what he, Peter, believes. Peter's response is what causes Jesus to praise Peter's faith and proclaim that Peter is the rock upon which he, Christ, will build his Church, and the forces of hell shall not prevail against it.

- Rick

[Polycarp]

Sure, Zenmaster, that makes perfect sense -- having all their lives believed devoutly in a single God with a major hangup on anyone worshipping anyone or anything other than Him, the Jewish followers of Jesus would be moved by numerology to skip two and jump to three. By that seme logic, most Zen Buddhists worship DeSotos! :rolleyes:

In point of fact, what seems to have happened is that the evolving understanding of who Jesus was and what He achieved forced the Followers of the Way (shortly to be called Christians, but not yet) to confront a conundrum -- Jesus taught of a God quite separate from Himself, yet with whom He identified very closely, and who He was came to be seen as God acting out the drama of salvation in human form -- "When we see Jesus, we see God." Then there was the experience of the Holy Spirit -- God indwelling and reshaping the spirit and character of the believer, and unmistakable as anything else if one has experienced it.

Yet the God of whom Jesus taught and the Spirit testified in their hearts was the single God of Judaism, not the chief god of a polytheism. There is only one God, not a whole set of deities that are somehow manifestations of each other.

The concept of the Trinity is an attempt to explain, in Greek philosophical concepts, how it can be that YHWH the Father is not Jesus, and neither are the Holy Spirit, yet each of them is God, and yet there is but one God.

Of course Jesus doesn't mention the word "trinity." Jesus didn't teach theology; he taught the proper response to God and to one's fellow man, and that humans without divine help are incapable of achieving it.

And of course one of the main reasons the doctrine caught on and became the accepted means of explaining that conundrum was that many cultures had trinities of various sorts in it -- Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu; Osiris, Isis, and Horus; etc.

The Holy Family concept is very late Catholicism, and has jack squat to do with the Christian Trinitarian concepts. A check through the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers could disabuse you of that notion. Though you probably have a point in that Marian doctrine seems to be strongest in areas with a strong pre-Christian goddess concept, and she seems to fill a need in the piety of many people.

[macabresoul]

Originally posted by Bricker
With all due respect, macabresoul, that's a pretty big thing to have missed. While Jesus as one aspect of the Lord God Almighty is not by any means universally believed, it's... well, it's a pretty famous idea, and the basis of Christianity.

- Rick

I know, I admit I am totally ignorant on this subject. I went to a 7th Day Adventists school from preschool - 5th grade. They never taught us about the trinity. It's not that I have never heard of it, of course I have heard of the trinity. It just was never taught to me, so I thought it was a certain sect or maybe another religion... who knows.

Thanks for the quotes, they do show how Jesus could be considered God. But they are still very vauge in my opinion.

John 1
1 IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2 He was present originally with God.
3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

John 8
58 Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.

and what Poly said

John 20
28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and trusted and relied on Me.


Titus 2
13 Awaiting and looking for the [fulfillment, the realization of our] blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One),

Jesus says 'I AM', but he never says, 'I AM GOD'. Are there any where he clearly states he is God? It's mostly disciples I see saying things like, 'My Lord and my God!'. I mean, just because the disciples looked up to him as a messiah and thought of him as a God, does that mean he is God?

Maybe I am not seeing it, but Zenmaster showed a passage which showed a straitforward answer. Are there any straitforward answers that say 'I am Jesus, I am God'?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Zev, I was addressing the usage in New Testament Greek, and the cultural usage I've been given to understand was customary at that time and place -- usages like saying "Heaven" as an euphemism for saying "God. I'm aware that ADN and even JH were elements of names and had secular usages as well as reference to God. Question: would the form adonai, which I gather translates as "my Lord," ever be used in addressing a royal, noble, or governing human person?

In any case, I have no cite but memory of years-ago studies informs me that a devout Diaspora Jew speaking Greek would avoid kyrios and ego eimi out of respect for the Divine Name and Titles. Perhaps Diogenes or another person with more recent and in-depth background on koine and First Century culture might pin this down as accurate or not?
My understanding, at least as it pertains to Koine, is that the difference is in the capitalization of the word (kyrios = "master, teacher. Kyrios = "Lord" in a divine sense).

I believe this has a parallel in Hebrew with adonai vs Adonai.

My college Greek was Attic, which only skimmed the NT. My source for this interpretation of [i]kyrios/Kyrios is a primer on Koine Greek specifically designed for use with the NT and it had a decidedly Christian slant to it. I haven't found that that this primer has been dishonest exactly, but it can be somewhat narrow in its definitions, withholding some variants which gay give a verse a different color here and there.


Am I correct about [i]Adonai/adonai at least?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I believe this has a parallel in Hebrew with adonai vs Adonai.

Am I correct about [i]Adonai/adonai at least?

No. Hebrew has no capital letters.

When the ending is -ai then the word usually refers to the Divine. When the ending ends in -ee (as in the Genesis example I gave) then the meaning is "My master" and is usually referring to a person.

Zev Steinhardt

[DonkeyMaster]

Jesus was a gay man, a gay man indeed.

[Polycarp]

That's helpful in enabling us to make the distinction, Diogenes, but we're looking at the contents of old manuscripts here, and I'm sure I don't need to remind you that neither Masoretic Hebrew nor the uncial codices distinguised majuscule and minuscule letters (along with spacing between words, punctuation, and a host of other characters -- there seems to be a great deal of similarity between a typical scribe and a 133+ |-|@XoR stylistically! :)

mac'soul: In Moses's first encounter with YHVH, he says, "If they ask who sent me, what shall I tell them?" And God answers, "Tell them 'I AM' sent you." At a slightly later time, God pronounces His Name to be "I AM THAT I AM."

If you've ever studied Spanish, you're familiar with the two ways of saying "I am" in that language. In "La Bamba," for example, occurs the line "Yo no soy marinero, soy capitan!" which illustrates the point. The verb form by itself means "I am" with the emphasis on what it is that you are. The nominative pronoun "Yo" is used to place emphasis on the "I" -- "*I* am the boss around here; you aren't!" (Actually the distinction between ser for permanent/identity use and estar for present state of being means that there are four ways to construct "I am" but that's beside the point for this discussion.)

Koine Greek was like this, except for using the pronoun slightly more often than Spanish would. And because the long form construction ego eimi was used to translate the Torah phrase, the pious Greek-speaking Jew of the Disaspora would carefully use either [i]eimi[/b] by itself or a circumlocution to avoid referring to himself by the Divine Name.

When Jesus says "I am the Bread of Life, " or "I am the Good Shepherd" or "I am the Vine; you are the branches," in the Gospel according to John, it's invariably rendered ego eimi in the original -- and for any person familiar with the Torah, this would have to conjure up the memory of the revealing of the Divine Name. (I could have had a similar effect by beginning this discussion, "It all depends on what the definition of "I am" is! :D) And, as Jersey notes, Jesus makes the ultimate claim of identity to God in "Before Abraham was, I AM." (BTW, in addition to these uses, there are number of cases where Jesus is cited as saying, "When [event X occurs], then you will know that I am he." The problem with this translation is that the "he" is supplied to provide an English sense -- what Jesus's main clause is, is "then you will know that I am")

Now, it can be argued, and has been, that John was "backwritten" with theological themes including the logos role and the ensuing identity with God intentionally inserted -- but working with the evidence before us, the man Jesus as depicted in the Gospels laid "claim to being equal to God" as the Pharisees accused Him of. Dismiss the evidence of the Gospels, and you have very little picture of who this Jesus that got Paul so wrought up was.

[Artemius]

<<Anyone else heard anything on this theory of the origin of the Trinity in Christian thought?>>

No and I think it's a load of _rap, too (he, he). I simply marvel at the extreme lengths Christians and scholars have gone to to try and convince themselves and the world that the miraculous conception and the crucifixion/resurrection actually took place. Is there any other religion that has as much research and publication dedicated to this? Are they afraid of something?

My brother, a fundie, in an attempt to "save" his little brother, recently sent me a book published just recently called "The Case for Christ". Why do people feel compelled to convince others of their beliefs? I don't see Buddhists and Hindus doing it. And I can't recall seeing Muslims riding around on bicycles in black slacks, white shirts, and ties, knocking on doors. Only Christians start crusades and feel compelled to go uninvited into other countries to "spread the word".

I recently began attending church a year ago after a 30 yr hiatus (for personal reasons) I think it was during one of the songs where I was listening to all the praise the lords, the lord is king, the lord is my shepherd, the lord sacrificed his life, the lord is my savior, I'm a sinner, I can't do anything on my own, (ie. I ain't squat without "the Lord");; or, maybe it was listening to the pastor talk about how vitally important is was for me to "believe" that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And all I could think about was that Christianity is definitely a cult, that this is brainwashing without the isolation/deprivation.

But, I rationalize that if people are gaining solace and peace from it then what's the harm. Most were born into it and don't know anything else. But they are still so "blind that they cannot see"and unaware that they must first recognize that love, god, and happiness reside within us all and it is our birthright to be happy.

It is a "sin", IMO to teach people were are sinful by nature and must worship something outside of us in order to feel good about ourselves and then made to live in fear of eternal damnation for not following a particular path. How about we are born perfect and through domestication and society we become perverted? We "go to sleep". Again, IMO, the "awakening" is reclaiming what we were born with. Brahma's task.

Zenmaster is right. And, IMHO, Jesus's teaching were subverted and the gospels altered. The resurrection was symbolic. I'd be extremely surprised to see a Christian denomination that teaches the "I am god" concept. That goes against the grain of wanting you to believe you are a sinner and need Jesus to save you. Christians taking biblical text out of context is classic "christianity". Ask Oral Roberts, he communes directly with god. Or, go ask David Koresh. Oh, that's right, he's unavailable for comment.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
No. Hebrew has no capital letters.

When the ending is -ai then the word usually refers to the Divine. When the ending ends in -ee (as in the Genesis example I gave) then the meaning is "My master" and is usually referring to a person.

Zev Steinhardt
Thank you, now I remember. it seemed to me like there was an adonai distinction but I wasn't positive it was the capitalization. Thanks for the help.

Poly,
You are correct. I don't know how much is being read into those distinctions and how much was actually intended by the gospelers. I'd be interested to know if there is any non-NT use of the capital kappa to indicate "Lord" in Koine (contemporary with the NT that is).

I guess we don't even know for sure that the capitalizations were not made by copyists rather than the authors. It's possible, I think.

In any case, as has been shown, the direct identification of Jesus with the Divine can be shown in the NT, including at least one gospel, without reference to the title of Lord. So if macabre is looking for some direct claim in the Christian Bible it is there.

[hilltopper]

Originally posted by Artemius
<<Anyone else heard anything on this theory of the origin of the Trinity in Christian thought?>>

And I can't recall seeing Muslims riding around on bicycles in black slacks, white shirts, and ties, knocking on doors. Only Christians start crusades and feel compelled to go uninvited into other countries to "spread the word".
t.

If you are refering to the Mormons, they are not Christians.

[hilltopper]

So far ZEN-M hasn't really given a cite for his Trinity rant...did you read that in the Watchtower?

[Who_me?]

Originally posted by hilltopper
If you are refering to the Mormons, they are not Christians.


I coulda swore they believed in Christ... wouldn't that make them Christians...

[hilltopper]

Not to hijack the OP , but Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. They believe Jesus was a God, not God himself. They also believe in a bastardized version of trinity. They actually believe they can become gods themselves in the next life.

Quote/ "The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cult, denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them: the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). "

http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_christian.htm

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by hilltopper
If you are refering to the Mormons, they are not Christians.

By whose definition? Are you God, that you should judge whom He calls and whom He does not?

JFTR, I have seen Mormons behaving in non-Christian manners, and Mormons behaving in quite Christian manners. And the same goes for evangelicals, Catholics, and any other group you care to name. I personally think that a large part of LDS doctrine is seriously wacko -- but that does not stop me from accepting them as my brothers and sisters.

Because they, like us, "believe in their heart and confess with their lips that Jesus Christ is Lord." Just like the UFMCC, the JWs, the Copts, and everything inbetween. And if that was a good enough definition to satisfy St., Paul, it works for me.

[Artemius]

<<If you are refering to the Mormons, they are not Christians.>>

Guess what? I wasn't referring to Mormons. I was referring to Moonies, who are Christians. I should know, I was lectured enough by my brother who was one.

[Nomadic_One]

I am a Pentecostal, and in my faith I (should say believe but am going to say know) that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh.

btw
Are there any where he clearly states he is God?

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

[Nomadic_One]

(please dont associate me with of any kind with Al Sharpton) Thank you

[JerseyDiamond]

One more to add...

Hebrews 1:3 (Amplified Bible)
He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power. When He had by offering Himself accomplished our cleansing of sins and riddance of guilt, He sat down at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high

(KJV)
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

(NIV)
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

(ESV)
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

And you can tell by the reactions the Jews had to him - They knew he was claiming to be God:

Luke 22:70-71 (NIV)
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

John 10:29-33 (NIV)
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

[emarkp]

Good grief hilltopper, have you ever hit your nose jerking your knee that hard/quickly? Not to hijack the OPToo late, you already hijacked it. If you want to continue the hijack, be aware that this discussion comes up routinely, and I have yet to see the one-trick Anti-Mormons do a very good job (or even make an honest argument). Take it to a different thread and invite us over if you want to discuss it.

As for the LDS (and my personal) understanding of the divinity of Jesus, He is God the Son. And He was from the foundation of the world. In addition to the Biblical quotes listed here, it is corroborated by extra-biblical LDS (http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15/5#5) scripture as well (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/19/15-19#15).

[FriarTed]

Artemius- the status of Mormons as Christians is arguable- I won't say that they aren't but I will say that the LDS Church's definition of God is vastly different from that of the Bible.

However, as far as Moonies go, they go far beyond even the Mormon differences- God sent Son #1 Jesus to marry a pure woman & redeem humanity by starting a perfect family which would spread worldwide. Jesus failed & thus only accomplished spiritual salvation by His Death & Resurrection. Soooooo, God now sends the Lord of the Second Advent (which Rev. Syn Myung Moon, after years of hinting, has finally publically pronounced is himself) to finish the redemptive mission that Jesus failed to complete.

If that's Christian, so is Islam- which teaches that Jesus is Messiah (tho not Allah's Son as that is a blasphemous concept) & a great prophet but that Mohammed is the completion of the prophets.

If your brother is trying to convert you to faith in Christ & not to join the Unification Church, he is not a Moonie.

Maybe a Methodist? a Mennonite? a Moldavian?

(yeah, the last one is a real group- they were kinda German pre-Methodists)

[Artemius]

FriarTed,

Splitting hairs IMO, and you know it. They believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and the immaculate conception and salvation-pillars of the Christian faith. And, since my bro' was a bonafide Moonie and you weren't (I assume), then I respectfully defer to his position.

But the point still stands. Only those associated with that belief system (and its variants) feel compelled to impose their beliefs on others and judge you for not believing. For example, I don't recall Buddhists burning witches at the stake, launching a crusades, coming in behind invading armies to spread the word of Buddhism, holing up in a compound and allowing men, women, and children to be burned to death by Federal agents, etc., etc. Of course, I realize I'm just being ignorant.

Since someone dragged Mormons into the discussion; I just shake my head everytime I think about the Mountain Meadow massacre. Just thought I'd throw that in.

[Isabelle]

Jesus + Holy Spirit + God = 1 dieity

Think of it as water. Water can be ice, steam and free flowing but it is still "water"

That is how God is. It is written in the bible that you can not see the Father except through me (Jesus)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Exodus says that Moses saw God...well he saw God's butt anyway. He didn't have to look through Jesus, though.

Anyway that's not exactly what Jesus said. The quotation from John has Jesus saying "No one comes to the father but through me" (whatever that means). He didn't say you couldn't see the father.

[Zenmaster Mojo]

Originally posted by whatsallthisabout
While the word "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible, that does not mean that it does not exist. It is spoken of implicitly many times in the Bible:


http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/trinity.htm

"While there is no explicit statement in the Old Testament affirming the Triunity, we can confidently say that the Old Testament not only allows for the Triunity, but also implies that God is a triune Being in a number of ways:

Whatsall, your argument here only proves that the concept of the Trinity is not anywhere precluded by biblical text, not that it is a necessary belief, nor that the concept wasn't borrowed from other religions of the time. The fact that some texts MAY be interpretted as so as to imply a Trinity does not mena that they SHOULD be interpretted this way.

There seems to be a concensus among posters on this thread that, as you say, the concept does not originate from anything said explicitly by Christ himself, nor from ANY biblical text. So, where DOES it come from? Where did it first appear in the development of early Church doctrine. It must have been early, since the concept is ubiquitous today throughout all Christian denominations (I think?)

Furthermore, since, there is nothing like it specifically, nor even analogous to it, in Jewish doctrines (which you admit), that at least narrows the range of time in which the concept was first developed (or, if you prefer, first became known).

There was a very good documentary on the History Channel last week about 'Peter & Paul' and their travels & ministries & conflicts within the early Church, particularly with regard to admission of Gentiles into their sect. This was at first opposed by some of the apostles. One thing that was clear though from the documentary: as the Church grew from an off-shoot of Judaism to a religion in its own right (and certain aspects of Jewish law discarded from Church traditions), the number of converts who were born Gentiles soon out-numbered those who were born Jews (like Jesus & all his disciples). The apostles travelled all throughout the Roman empire (and perhaps elsewhere too) to preach the Word. Many of their converts were followers of the indigenous Roman religions. Even in Jerusalem in Jesus' time there were many Roman temples & shrines. So, there is a good chance that many theological concepts surrounding the worship of Roman deities were well-known to many early Christians. Greek, Egyptian, other relious traditions were also likely well-known. It is not inconceivable that apostles would choose to describe their God in terms that were intelligible & associated with mystical tradtions of other faiths besides Judaism. The concept of the Trinity had to come from somewhere. That doesn't mean its necessarily wrong either. I don't see the reason for its strong emphasis among Christianity.

To me a tri-une godhead sounds like a lot of hocus-pocus numerolgy, but that just my opinion. Mystical incomprehensible nonsense developed to bestow special powers on priests to divine the ineffible. (To me it reminds me of a famous saying by Nietsche that "philosophers are people who muddy the waters to make themselves appear deep.")

I'm not trying to convince anyone that its untrue. I'm merely reporting what I have heard alleged regarding the possible origins of the concept and also stating my considered opinion of it.

Why isn't it just as likely that the concept was simply added to show potential new converts that the Christian church contained revealed mystical wisdom that was just as powerful as the Roman traditions. Or, that the Roman concept of the Trinity was incomplete or a distortion of the true Trinity?

In other words, why is it so central to belief? Someone explain that to me.

What's wrong with Jesus simply being the Messiah? Why the insistance in the belief in Jesus being God or the Holy Ghost (whatever that is) also being God, yet somehow also separate from God.

And, conversely, if its so central to belief, why is it nowhere stated explicitly in Scripture? What evidence do we have that it is not simply like many other accumulaed local traditions that the Church picked up over the centuries - just among the first local mystical traditions to be incorporated.

[Zenmaster Mojo]

Originally posted by Bricker
Zenmaster:

If your interpretation is correct, what do you make of the passage in which Christ asks Peter who people are saying the Messiah is? Peter replies that there are many different beliefs; some say John the Baptist; some, Jeremiah; some, Elijah.

Christ then asks Peter what he, Peter, believes. Peter's response is what causes Jesus to praise Peter's faith and proclaim that Peter is the rock upon which he, Christ, will build his Church, and the forces of hell shall not prevail against it.

I am not arguing either for or against Jesus being the Messiah promised & sent by God. I am only arguing against the concept of the Trinity as aprimary concept - since I don't see what it adds to the Faith and it is not mentioned in any Scriptures.

In fact the passage, you quote seems to argue against the Trinity - i.e. that he is god's final messenger or Messiah, not god himself.

Polycarp's post above seems to agree with me that:
The concept of the Trinity is an attempt to explain, in Greek philosophical concepts, how it can be that YHWH the Father is not Jesus, and neither are the Holy Spirit, yet each of them is God, and yet there is but one God....

And of course one of the main reasons the doctrine caught on and became the accepted means of explaining that conundrum was that many cultures had trinities of various sorts in it -- Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu; Osiris, Isis, and Horus; etc.

Let's think for a moment about the early apostles trying to bring the Good News to pagan Romans, Greeks & Egyptians. First they teach them that there is only one God that they must love with all their hearts. Then they teach them about Jesus and that he too was God. I imagine at this point a hand being raised at the back of the crowd with the obvious question: "So, which god should we pray to or offer sacrifices to Jehovah or Jesus." And, then another question: "I thought you said there was only one god?" And another: "If we pray to your two gods on Sunday, can we then go pray to Apollo on Monday and Hera on Tuesday, etc."

The Jews might have had an easier time with the idea of one god who was differently manifest, but to a polytheist the idea of different names, means two different gods. Unless, they are somehow combined. And, duo is a very awkward conception for a god. Enter the concept of the Holy Spirit to round out the Trinity. There are many 3-part pagan gods - uusally god, his goddess consort, and their divine Son.

Christinanity having no goddess replace her position in the Trinity with the Holy Spirit.

Earlier, I mentioned the Catholic de facto deification of Mary. I realized this came much later. I mentioned it only to point out how much people like the holy family idea - so much so that the Catholic Church later created their own goddess image for people to pray to, because it seemed to fulfill some inate spiritual need or sense of balance or something to include a feminine figure within their ritual of devotion to god. Also, it shows how concepts of worship have evolved.

The shrines of various specialized saints within the cathedral each with different rituals, mythology & types of prayers to direct to them, seems to bring back some aspects of pagani devotion back into the mix. God becomes in the end simply the king of the pantheon of saints, angels, divine son, Holy Mother, and holy spirit. Each in the pantheon are thought to have special abilities. Some prayers go the god, some to Mary, some to a specific saint (who then relays them to god the father). I'm not passing judgement on anyone's beliefs just pointing similarities.

Many other examples of pagan ritual incorporation within the Church exist & continue till this day. Example: Christamas is in December simply to takeover the pagan holiday of the Winter Solstice. Easter includes traditional images such as eggs & rabbits that are rather obvious fertility symbols borrowed Spring Equinox celebrations - having nothing to do with the Resurrection.

So, people shouldn't be so upset by the idea that the Trinity may have existed first in other religions and then grafted onto Christian teachings as a means to better explain Jesus' special relation to God.

[Johanna]

Apologizing in advance for the hijack...

Artemius writesOriginally posted by Artemius
I can't recall seeing Muslims riding around on bicycles in black slacks, white shirts, and ties, knocking on doors. Only Christians start crusades and feel compelled to go uninvited into other countries to "spread the word".As a matter of fact, it's quite interesting that there is an organization of Muslim missionaries from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh that actually are swarming all over the country as we speak, going and knocking on doors to preach Islam. But you've never seen any of them and you remain completely unaware of their existence. Why? Because they never, ever approach Christians or any non-Muslims. They only preach to Muslims. They only knock on Muslims' doors. Literally preaching to the converted, that's all they do. This organization is called the Tablîghî Jamâ‘ât. They go according to the principle in Islam that you don't try to convert people. If anybody wants to convert to Islam, that's peachy, but you're not supposed to put any pressure on them; leave them alone to reach that decision on their own.

Muslims believe in Jesus too, so in a certain sense they are Christian. They don't believe in the Trinity, or that Jesus was God; but then neither do the Unitarians and maybe some other Christian groups.

[Nomadic_One]

So, where DOES it come from? Where did it first appear in the development of early Church doctrine. It must have been early, since the concept is ubiquitous today throughout all Christian denominations (I think?)

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinhistory.htm

-good site explainint the inaccuracies of the trinitarian concept. :)

[Svt4Him]

The deity of Jesus is a fairly key belief. And the debate of who He was or wasn't is not a new one. But maybe I can address some things as well. The story of the good samaritan was mentioned. This story was not to show what you do or do not believe to get to heaven, it was to show the heart of the man asking the question. "What must I do to be saved" as in I'm really good, I've kept the laws from my childhood. Jesus then shows the man how, by his pride, he's missing it. What was his pride? Well, the fact that he didn't love his neighbour, and therefore wasn't perfect.

There are also many ref. to the deity of Jesus. One of the names of Jesus is translated God with us. Now this is something I've talkd to Mormons as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, and there is more than enought information on this. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/jwsrefut.html

As for judging what a Christian is or is not, you are taking a Biblical term and applying it to different situations. Is a good person a Christian? If so, then a Christian is defined as a good person. But then what is a good person? Is a liar a good person? Have you lied? Or is a Christian one who goes to a certain denomination? Didn't Paul address this in Corinthians? Or is it believing in whatever you believe in, even if your wrong? And who am I to say JW's are wrong? Well, someone who's studied their teachings. Mormonism? Well, they believe the KJV of the Bible, in so far as it's translated correct. So lets go to the original manuscripts and see what they say compared to what LDS teach. For instance, of the other 11 apostles who saw the gold plates that J.Smith saw, 11 of them later claimed to only see it by faith. The Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth has been corrected over, at last count, 4000 times. The Bible had different translations, but the same original language, so it's not one in the same. The BoM was English and still is in English. Watchtower, in Jan 1, 1924 published a statement that the kingdom was to be set up in the late 1800's, which was later changed to say 1914. So was it 1874 or 1914? So judge what they teach to see if it's truth, and the same for Christianity.

[NothingMan]

"They started out in Babylon where superstion ruled,
they made their home in Greece and Rome and everyone was fooled.
Now nothings changed except the names, today they're known by most,
as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

Chorus:
And if there's ever been a lie then this is one,
they'll tell you 'Son of God' means "God the Son'.
Well we're Gods sons and daughters you and me. . .
so if Jesus Christ is God then so are we.

If Christ was God, then God must need some psychiatric help,
'cause he sure did spend a lot of time praying to himself.
If Christ was God who raised Him up? I just don't understand -
and I sure would love to see Him sitting on His own right hand.

Chorus

My father is my brother and I don't know what to do.
For Christmas they gave me a bike - and thats my father too.
Now '3 in 1' s the oil I use when that bike needs to be greased . . .
and if you can figure that one out, you'd make a damned good priest."

- The preceding was a very strange song some guy in our youth group wrote when I was a kid. Obviously it was a very non-denominational upbringing. Clever lyrics though - its amazing the things one remembers.

[NothingMan]

Now how did I kill this thread?

Perhaps those lyrics just stunned everyone into silence.

??

[Kalt]

People put these bumper stickers on their cars because they think it sounds good and, since there's a good chance (just statistics) that any given cop will be christian, the show of respect for jesus will get them out of speeding tickets. There's no other reason to advertise "I am a christian" on the back of one's car.

[kevlaw]

IANAChristian but ...

... I had always understood that until about 300AD there was no general consensus among the Christian community on the nature of Christ. Rather there were several paradoxes arising from conflicting passages in the bible.

It was not until Arian ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism ) championed the notion that Jesus was the divine son of God that the competing view, that Jesus actualy was God - championed by Athanasius, became prominent.

My memory tells me that the controversy raged for a while and was settled as much by superior political strength as by theological argument but the page I linked to suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity was already well established and that Arianism was a marginal heresy.

It's very possible that my memory is faulty or that my source was wrong though.

Fascinating subject.

[HPL]

Originally posted by Kalt
People put these bumper stickers on their cars because they think it sounds good and, since there's a good chance (just statistics) that any given cop will be christian, the show of respect for jesus will get them out of speeding tickets. There's no other reason to advertise "I am a christian" on the back of one's car.

I'd guess the same reason anybody puts any bumper sticker with a religious or political viewpoint on their car. They are proud of it or expressing their opinion.

[Johanna]

You mean Arius (4th-5th century Egyptian). Arian is the adjective derived from Arius.

Arianism denies that Jesus was of the same substance of God. Instead, it says that he was only the highest of created beings. This is pretty similar the Christology of Islam, which enshrines Jesus as a major prophet and teaches that the prophets (collectively) are the highest of created beings.

Arianism may consider Jesus as the "Son of God," but only as a figure of speech, not consubstantial with the Father, therefore not divine. In this way it was a precursor of both Islam and Unitarianism. The Church of Rome tried hard to stamp it out with the Council of Nicea.

[kevlaw]

Idid, of course, mean Arius. Sorry.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of Christian history can step in and confirm or deny the correctness of my assertion : that the doctrine of the trinity arose from the Arius/Athanasius controversy, and that there was no established doctrine prior to the Council of Nicea.

Jomo Mojo seems to imply that Arius was challenging the orthodox view - I understood that there was no orthodox view at the time.

[Kalt]

Originally posted by HPL
I'd guess the same reason anybody puts any bumper sticker with a religious or political viewpoint on their car. They are proud of it or expressing their opinion.

Well, Jesus said not to do that (at least in regards to showing off your religiosity). So, a more cynical explanation is needed. The average christian would surely defy the teachings of christ to potentially avoid traffic tickets. I don't see any other way to see it.

[Artemius]

Kevlaw wrote:

<<Maybe someone with more knowledge of Christian history can step in and confirm or deny the correctness of my assertion : that the doctrine of the trinity arose from the Arius/Athanasius controversy, and that there was no established doctrine prior to the Council of Nicea.>>

No established doctrine prior. That is how I understand it. There were a lot of different factions. Quite vociferous. The whole purpose of the council was to unify everyone, to establish one doctrine. There was great political pressure and Constantine (the emperor) saw a vast potential of support, politically and militarily.

I'm currently reading a book about Jesus's lost years from 13-30 a period that fundies and TB's seem to ignore or not consider significant. There is a good case to be made that he was heavily involved with Buddhism in India and Tibet, was highly respected and known as the Prophet Issa. Of course, this post will, I'm sure, be followed by fundies and TB's professing how I'm propagating ignorace. So-be-it.

[Polycarp]

Artemius: Correct on no established doctrine; in fact, the factiousness between partisans and the divisive effect on their followers (some of whom were actually brawling in the streets, IIRC), was a prime reason why Constantine pressured for the calling of the Council.

The majority of the church leadership did tend to the view proclaimed as orthodox in the Council -- that's why it was adopted as doctrine! But it's a case of pinning down a question that had apparently never been raised before -- people evidently seemed content with doctrine of one God, Jesus the Lord, Holy Spirit, and nobody asked to have it sorted out and categorized how they were related.



I'd heard about attempts to place Jesus in the East during the years before he began his ministry; the teachers I had (who were quite open to exploring new ideas; one of them gave me my first exposure to Islam and Buddhism) were inclined to pooh-pooh it (this was about 30 years ago) on the basis that it was wishful thinking on minimal evidence stretched to fit someone's desire to "have Jesus partake of the wisdom of the East." I do see some similarilities in his more mystical utterances and some of early Buddhism -- so if you find that this book has more to it than wish-fulfillment on the author's part -- some concrete evidence or even a reasonable train of logic -- I'd be very interested in hearing about what it is.

(Word of warning in evaluating the material: Note that references to "Issa" as a spiritual leader coming from late 1st or 2nd century Sind or later in Kerala will likely not be independent evidence, but are far more likely to be references to the beliefs of the Mar Thoma Christians (who definitely existed from very early AD times on and continue to exist, though whether Thomas the Apostle founded them as they claim is a different question!)

Brief note to Jomo: Whether you call the church that ended up defining doctrine at Nicaea the Catholic Church (as you did), the Orthodox Church (as dogface would), or just the Church bodes not -- but it's important to keep in mind that it was the undivided church covering what is now the Catholic West and the Orthodox East, and would be for centuries yet.

[Artemius]

Polycarp wrote:

<<I do see some similarilities in his more mystical utterances and some of early Buddhism -- so if you find that this book has more to it than wish-fulfillment on the author's part -- some concrete evidence or even a reasonable train of logic -- I'd be very interested in hearing about what it is.>>

Hope you had an enjoyable 4th.

*Concrete evidence* *Wish fulfillment*?! Surely you see how laughable that is and I mean no disrespect. I scratch my head at this. Because, while you do not have *concrete evidence* as to YOUR belief (which there is no credible evidence, concrete or otherwise), you require the same from me to disprove your unprovable/unscientific/esoteric *Belief*?? WHEN, considering, the burden of proof is upon you! How did the tables get turned? (I'll tell you how....the Roman Catholic Church!) It's really amusing when viewed from a distance. No scientist or court of law would assume your postion.

One more comment. *Mystical utterances* (of early Buddhism). Can you be more judgmental? On what grounds do you make this judgment? Do you have any proof you can proffer? (since everyone demands it of me)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Artemius,
This book you're reading...is it by any chance called Jesus Lived in India by Holger Kersten?

I've read it (I own it, in fact) and I've seen the televison special about it. I have to tell you that this theory is not taken seriously by current historical Jesus scholarship. The book in question is actually full of silly and unsupported assertions quite apart from the Jesus in India material (such as the statement that it is "certain" that the star of Bethlehem and the visit of the Magi were real events). There is much better and much more scholarly work out there on the subject of historical Jesus. I would recommend looking at the works of John Crossan or Robert Funk for example. They are two of the most prominent members of the Jesus Seminar and their research is much more disciplined, empirical and academically grounded than Kersten.

The truth is, though, that virtually nothing is known about about Jesus' early years. I've read all kinds of theories and been comvinced by none of them. It all comes down to rank speculation.
Although some of his teachings have a mystical aspect to them (and I pretty much believe that he was an ecstatic mystic), it's not necessary to place him in India in his formative years for him to have acquired any mystical experiences. Jewish mystic traditions would have been quite adequate. His teachings, at their core, are firmly rooted in Judaism and do not show any identifiable Hindu or Buddhist influence. There are elements which seem similar to Eastern mysticism, but nothing which is distinctive to the point where it could have only come from those traditions. It does not turn up in any explicit doctrine and in fact some of the ideas which one might expect to be the most important in an Indian influenced worldview do not pop up at all (reincarnation, karma, polythesim, dharma) in Jesus' teachings.

I would argue that all transcendent experiences all the same, or at least similar enough that a first century Jewish peasant's experience would not be radically different from an Indian sadhu. Jesus' cryptic or allegorical references to that experience, the, would be similar to some of the indirect methods which are used in Buddhism or Hinduism. Some of the quotations in Thomas, especially, are similar to Zen koans.

Btw, what do you find insulting about the use of the phrase "mystic utterances?" Some of Jesus' statements are analogous to ideas expressed in Buddhism. Why the umbrage? It's not an insult.

[Captain Amazing]

A lot of Buddhist philosophy is similar to various schools of Greek philosophy, so some of what seem to be Buddhist influences on Jesus's thought might actually be Greek influences on Jesus's thought.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That would make a lot of sense especially in a region which was heavily Hellenized at the time that Jesus lived.

[Artemius]

(Pardon the "jumping down your throat" Polycarp. I wrote that right after my soon-to-be ex-wife told me we each have to fork over $700 for a mediator. This, of course, is on top of the 2 grand each of us gave our respective lawyers. Anyway.....)

No, the book I'm reading is "The Lost Years of Jesus" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. It's centered around the book written and published around the turn of the century by Russian journalist Nicolas Notovitch. He was shown Buddhist manuscripts at the monastery in Himis which spoke about Jesus/Issa. If I get real ambitious I'll scan and OCR it's rendition of what really happened at the crucifixion. At first scoffed at and ridiculed, later scholars and educators in this century have affirmed their existence (the manuscripts).

Diogenes, what is an *ecstatic mystic*?

Diogenes wrote:

<<I would recommend looking at the works of John Crossan or Robert Funk for example. They are two of the most prominent members of the Jesus Seminar and their research is much more disciplined, empirical and academically grounded than Kersten.>>

<<The truth is, though, that virtually nothing is known about about Jesus' early years. I've read all kinds of theories and been comvinced by none of them. It all comes down to rank speculation.>>

Doesn't that bother you? You have scant info on his childhood, and, what, about a year of his time as an adult in Palestine? And during that time you have these miraculous claims of defiance of all known physical laws of the universe capped off by resurrecting a 3 day old dead body? Yet you use words such as "disciplined, empirical, and academically grounded" when rationalizing it all. And then you (pl.) put the onus on us to prove otherwise??????

Heck, based on that, I guess Carlos Catanada and Don Juan don't sound too farfetched after all. He, he.

I don't agree with his teachings not reflecting any Buddhist influence. For one, just off the top of my head, they both emphasize that thoughts, what we think, have/has a lot to do with how we perceive our world. Come to think of it, there are many similarities but I'm at work and don't have the time to put down a littany.

It is my belief (as I've stated before) that Jesus had learned all he could, had become fully "awakened", was in his prime, didn't cling to life, and decided to return home in order to try and teach people a better way to live at whatever the personal cost.
What a human being he must've been. I love reading the New Testament and chuckling at how he would totally freak out the disciples with his radical words, thoughts, and actions.

However, he was fully aware of the political climate and basic ignorance and superstitious nature of the populace, and clamor for a Messiah. Therefore he spoke in parables and taught by example because he had no intention of acting like a *king*. Since there is also a question of his returning to claim a real throne. My own belief on the latter point is that he probably wasn't interested in that but would use it to his advantage to accomplish his goal.

Pilate crucified him because of his growing popularity and lineage. Then, after 3 days, again wary of the people, he had his body secretly exhumed and relocated.

What's the tried and tested police detective maxim? The simplest explanation is usually the truth.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Artemius
I don't agree with his teachings not reflecting any Buddhist influence. For one, just off the top of my head, they both emphasize that thoughts, what we think, have/has a lot to do with how we perceive our world. Come to think of it, there are many similarities but I'm at work and don't have the time to put down a littany.

Well, but that idea is pretty common, and in more than just Buddhism. Look, for instance, at these sayings of Epictetus, the Stoic

Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. . .When you see anyone weeping in grief because his son has gone abroad, or is dead, or because he has suffered in his affairs, be careful that the appearance may not misdirect you. Instead, distinguish within your own mind, and be prepared to say, "It's not the accident that distresses this person., because it doesn't distress another person; it is the judgment which he makes about it." As far as words go, however, don't reduce yourself to his level, and certainly do not moan with him. Do not moan inwardly either.

Some Platonists went even further, saying that the mind was the only thing that existed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think you misunderstand me, Artimeus. I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in miracles or resurrections or the divinity of Jesus. I'm just telling you that from an empirical historical standpoint it's almost impossible to know anything about Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that about all that can be known with any certainty is that he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pilate.

I've spent a lot of years trying to research historical Jesus and reading any and all theories but the frustrating truth is that there simply isn't anything which can be known with any certainty.

An ecstatic mystic is one who can attain ecstatic states of mind through mystic techniiques. Ecstatics are often very charismatic and have a commanding personal presence. This kind of mysticism has quite a tradition in (but is by no means limited to) India. Anecdotally it is said that merely being in the presence of one who is in this state of Samadhi can inspire altered or ecstatic states in others.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet is kind of a whack-job, btw. She propounds a number of supernatural claims, including reincarnation and predictive prophesy. In 1990 she predicted that the Soviet Union would launch a nuclear assault on the US. Obviously, we're still here.

Prophet's cult (Church Universal and Triumphant) is basically a variation of the Theosophical movement around the turn of the century. It's also a doomsday cult which has been known to stockpile weapons ala the Branch Davidians.

The CUaT has had numerous problems with the state of Montana over varius issues including environmental pollution from underground fuel tanks, tax fraud, and abuse and extortion of its members.

I'm sorry but Prophet is not a credible historical authority. Try the authors I mentioned before. They're actually college professors with relevant PHDs not cult leaders.

[Artemius]

Good point Captain. This echoes Buddha saying that the root of all unhappiness are our desires. That the secret is to desire what you already have (no matter what that might be).

[Artemius]

Diogenes,

For whatever it is worth to you, the book is endorsed by a PhD Anthropology professor at California State University. He says, "The research was not only thorough and accurate, but very, very, careful." Was he paid to say that? Could've been. Also, she's merely capitalizing on the research of 3 other scholars and reporting it. She may indeed be a "whack job" but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that.

At least we agree on Jesus. I'm a little more open-minded, IMO, and willing to make some concessions for the fundies and TB's. I guess it just never ceases to amaze me what they are willing to believe, hook, line, and sinker.

[Polycarp]

Artemius, life does suck, a lot of the time, and I owe you too an apology for my snitty attitude towards you. We agree far more than may be apparent from my posts to date -- I am a seeker after truth, wherever it may be found, whose life experiences have convinced me of the reality of the message of Jesus. That does not mean that I buy into every miracle story nor that I reject the scholarship that finds myth, legend, and apocalyptic in the Bible. And one of my own sore spots is that my claiming to be a Christian means to many people that I am therefore claiming to be a brain-dead fundamentalist who will swallow any insanity because it is taught by some joker to be in the Bible conceived of as a document dictated verbatim by God. That's not what I think, and it pisses me off when people assume it.

I'm looking forward to more interesting discussions with you, now that we have a handle on each other's perspectives. Peace?

[Artemius]

Yes. Peace