Jesus is God?

Great Debates
41

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.

42

Apologizing in advance for the hijack…

Artemius writes

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.

43

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

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

44

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.

45

"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.
46

Now how did I kill this thread?

Perhaps those lyrics just stunned everyone into silence.

??

47

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.

48

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.

49

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.

50

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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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.

55

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)

56

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.

57

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.

58

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

59

(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.

60

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

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