Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect. Colossians 1:17 is clear. You MUST wrestle with Colossians 1:15-20
Please do so. -Lon
JESUS IS NOT YHWH
- Thread starter KingdomRose
- Start date
- Status
Please do so. -Lon
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Lon
Well-known member
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
do some more research.......
do some more research.......
Why does Jesus need to be 'God'? According to whom? Even the gospel Paul preached does NOT require such a belief, as it focuses on a cosmic Christ figure dying for sins and being resurrected, not exclusively Jesus assumed divinity, and even still no matter how much divinity you ascribe him, he is still the SON of a greater Deity-Father.
Different views on Jesus were assumed and developed during the formative years of Christianity until some became the more traditional orthodox assumption, yet such a consensus does not guarentee truth. As I've shared elsewhere, you cannot prove a Trinitarian Christology is any better or more true than a traditional Unitarian one beyond your own personal opinion that such is the case.
You're in an even more sketchy predicament in assuming Jesus is the same YHWH in the OT who commands wholesale genocide, physical mutilation (circumcision), animal sacrifice, slavery, and other harmful decrees while demanding exclusive worship and veneration. This is why some earlier 'christians' (Marcionites, some Gnostics) tended to reject yhwh of the OT as a 'lesser' god or demiurge, seeing Jesus as a divinely sent and anointed prophet, yes....but sent by the true and living God,....the ineffable Father (the unknown God). In this view Jesus and yhwh are quite different, much less related.
do some more research.......
Why does Jesus need to be 'God'? According to whom? Even the gospel Paul preached does NOT require such a belief, as it focuses on a cosmic Christ figure dying for sins and being resurrected, not exclusively Jesus assumed divinity, and even still no matter how much divinity you ascribe him, he is still the SON of a greater Deity-Father.
Different views on Jesus were assumed and developed during the formative years of Christianity until some became the more traditional orthodox assumption, yet such a consensus does not guarentee truth. As I've shared elsewhere, you cannot prove a Trinitarian Christology is any better or more true than a traditional Unitarian one beyond your own personal opinion that such is the case.
You're in an even more sketchy predicament in assuming Jesus is the same YHWH in the OT who commands wholesale genocide, physical mutilation (circumcision), animal sacrifice, slavery, and other harmful decrees while demanding exclusive worship and veneration. This is why some earlier 'christians' (Marcionites, some Gnostics) tended to reject yhwh of the OT as a 'lesser' god or demiurge, seeing Jesus as a divinely sent and anointed prophet, yes....but sent by the true and living God,....the ineffable Father (the unknown God). In this view Jesus and yhwh are quite different, much less related.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Questionable passages
Questionable passages
Tacitus does not qualify as an eyewitness of Jesus being born decades after his death, and his passage in Annals is AD 116. While many assume it's authenticity, some doubt it and there are reasons to believe it is a forgery. I've recently been diving deep into the Mythicist and historical Christ perspectives and may start a thread on some particulars
Tacitus ( rationalwiki)
Questionable passages
Tacitus does not qualify as an eyewitness of Jesus being born decades after his death, and his passage in Annals is AD 116. While many assume it's authenticity, some doubt it and there are reasons to believe it is a forgery. I've recently been diving deep into the Mythicist and historical Christ perspectives and may start a thread on some particulars
Tacitus ( rationalwiki)
I said
Your right Jesus is not God. Jesus told the Father that He was the only true God.
[Jhn 17:1-3
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
Paul even greed that for us there is only one God the Father.
[1Co 8:6
6 yet for us [there is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things, and through whom we [live].
2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
oatmeal
Well-known member
I wondered that myself.
If a perfect man, the son of God, was sufficient payment for our sins, isn't God wise enough not to pay more?
Jesus Christ, the man, was perfect payment on our behalf.
God, who is the eternal spirit, cannot die, because as scripture makes clear, He is eternal.
If God died, then who raised Him from the dead? If He was still alive, then He did not die for our sins.
I wonder which way is right for them?
Or will they submit that God can to anything, which is erroneous, because God cannot lie for one thing.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Question wisely................
Question wisely................
Yes, and you will note I come from also a more expanded all-inclusive context, in approaching this, even exploring venues beyond my former observations. There is no need for Jesus to be 'God', in any way, shape or form, for any reason or context,...but this does not deny any sharing of divinity that Jesus may partake in being the 'Son' of God.
We are all the offspring of 'God', no matter what special or unique status one gives to 'Jesus' or any other special or unique 'Son' or 'arch-angel'. Jesus made this clear by referring to Psalm 82 in John's gospel in showing that 'God' called his people 'elohim' (god/gods) and children of the Most High, and any truth written under inspiration cannot be broken. - hence he was hardly in the wrong when ONLY claiming to be the the SON of God.
Quote:
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”
-John 10
And note, that there is no need for anyone to 'die' for anyone else, since all that is necessary is one's own ego-death, in his own personal act of surrender and repentance to 'God'. The symbolic gesture or meaning of the cross is the denying or crucifying of one's own lower nature (the 'flesh' {carnal mind}, so that the soul may become subject to the life-giving power and influence of the Spirit). - while it appears Paul references a historical point in time pointing to Jesus crucifixion, he still uses its symbolic meaning and application for all believers in their own SHARING in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as being 'in Christ', since this 'Christ' has become a life-giving spirit.
But I extend the question further as noted earlier,....who says anyone NEEDS to die for anyone else? - see Ezekiel, and the principle of 'self-responsibility', for each must be punished (die) for his own sins (the soul that sins shall die), and likewise be restored by his own repentance (righteousness). While you can speculate an intellectual concept of one dying for the sins of another, this NEVER abrogates self-responsibility, neither does it annul the karmic law of compensation, where every soul STILL reaps what it sows.
Do note that this does not negate any dispensational grace given to souls by any special grant or minister of the Lord (all anointed ones serve as mediators in some form or fashion), since the action of divine grace is the saving power that enables all to be saved (of course), but the responsibility of man for his own thoughts, words and deeds ever has its effects and accountings. - all are judged according to their works (all thoughts, words, actions have their effects).
I challenge them to rethink their whole theology. My own is ever open to questioning, as a seeker of truth, is ever asking, seeking and knocking....and these alone discover truth.
Well,...biblical theology in its entire spectrum is subject to so much complexity, that it doesnt take much for any certain translation or interpretation to take root, and branch off into its own tangents. My current journey is one to discover truth, reality, make a creative journey of it. This includes dropping any belief, opinion, assumption, concept at any moment, if so needed. All else is word-play of course,....'alphabet soup'
In my diving into serious research of the Christ-myth theory, this is taking on new dimensions. That Jesus NEED not be yhwh is only one contingent among other propositions to be explored, since the first few centuries after Christ are pivotal in discovering just who Jesus was or wasn't, if a historical Jesus figure as posited in the gospels even existed, or if Jesus is a composite figure combined of both historical personalities and mythical savior-gods, or some other arrangement. Some dont care, but just swallow what organized religious culture or tradition spoon feeds them. I prefer a different kind of diet.
Question wisely................
Yes, and you will note I come from also a more expanded all-inclusive context, in approaching this, even exploring venues beyond my former observations. There is no need for Jesus to be 'God', in any way, shape or form, for any reason or context,...but this does not deny any sharing of divinity that Jesus may partake in being the 'Son' of God.
We are all the offspring of 'God', no matter what special or unique status one gives to 'Jesus' or any other special or unique 'Son' or 'arch-angel'. Jesus made this clear by referring to Psalm 82 in John's gospel in showing that 'God' called his people 'elohim' (god/gods) and children of the Most High, and any truth written under inspiration cannot be broken. - hence he was hardly in the wrong when ONLY claiming to be the the SON of God.
Quote:
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”
-John 10
And note, that there is no need for anyone to 'die' for anyone else, since all that is necessary is one's own ego-death, in his own personal act of surrender and repentance to 'God'. The symbolic gesture or meaning of the cross is the denying or crucifying of one's own lower nature (the 'flesh' {carnal mind}, so that the soul may become subject to the life-giving power and influence of the Spirit). - while it appears Paul references a historical point in time pointing to Jesus crucifixion, he still uses its symbolic meaning and application for all believers in their own SHARING in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as being 'in Christ', since this 'Christ' has become a life-giving spirit.
But I extend the question further as noted earlier,....who says anyone NEEDS to die for anyone else? - see Ezekiel, and the principle of 'self-responsibility', for each must be punished (die) for his own sins (the soul that sins shall die), and likewise be restored by his own repentance (righteousness). While you can speculate an intellectual concept of one dying for the sins of another, this NEVER abrogates self-responsibility, neither does it annul the karmic law of compensation, where every soul STILL reaps what it sows.
Do note that this does not negate any dispensational grace given to souls by any special grant or minister of the Lord (all anointed ones serve as mediators in some form or fashion), since the action of divine grace is the saving power that enables all to be saved (of course), but the responsibility of man for his own thoughts, words and deeds ever has its effects and accountings. - all are judged according to their works (all thoughts, words, actions have their effects).
I challenge them to rethink their whole theology. My own is ever open to questioning, as a seeker of truth, is ever asking, seeking and knocking....and these alone discover truth.
Well,...biblical theology in its entire spectrum is subject to so much complexity, that it doesnt take much for any certain translation or interpretation to take root, and branch off into its own tangents. My current journey is one to discover truth, reality, make a creative journey of it. This includes dropping any belief, opinion, assumption, concept at any moment, if so needed. All else is word-play of course,....'alphabet soup'
In my diving into serious research of the Christ-myth theory, this is taking on new dimensions. That Jesus NEED not be yhwh is only one contingent among other propositions to be explored, since the first few centuries after Christ are pivotal in discovering just who Jesus was or wasn't, if a historical Jesus figure as posited in the gospels even existed, or if Jesus is a composite figure combined of both historical personalities and mythical savior-gods, or some other arrangement. Some dont care, but just swallow what organized religious culture or tradition spoon feeds them. I prefer a different kind of diet.
Who is the only One who has infinite worth?
It's certainly not any man.
What kind of price must be paid for sin? Not one that any man can pay, and that's just for his own sin.
So if there's a need for payment, and the payment required is more than any one man can pay, and there is more than one person that sins, then there is no way that one man can pay for all sin. Not even a perfect man.
Hear this, all peoples; Give ear, all inhabitants of the world,Both low and high, Rich and poor together.My mouth shall speak wisdom, And the meditation of my heart shall give understanding.I will incline my ear to a proverb; I will disclose my dark saying on the harp.Why should I fear in the days of evil, When the iniquity at my heels surrounds me?Those who trust in their wealth And boast in the multitude of their riches,None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit.For he sees wise men die; Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish, And leave their wealth to others.Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever, Their dwelling places to all generations; They call their lands after their own names.Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; He is like the beasts that perish.This is the way of those who are foolish, And of their posterity who approve their sayings. SelahLike sheep they are laid in the grave; Death shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. SelahDo not be afraid when one becomes rich, When the glory of his house is increased;For when he dies he shall carry nothing away; His glory shall not descend after him.Though while he lives he blesses himself (For men will praise you when you do well for yourself),He shall go to the generation of his fathers; They shall never see light.A man who is in honor, yet does not understand, Is like the beasts that perish. - Psalm 49:1-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:1-20&version=NKJV
God, who told us through His word, the Bible.
No, but believing the Bible does require such a belief, that Christ is God.
It's not just Paul's teachings, because He was teaching something that was hidden, a mystery. What was it hidden in? Try the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, what we know as the Old Testament.
That's true for anything. Which is why we use the Bible as our foundation, and not the teachings of men.
Go read my posts to Keypurr in the "The Trinity" and "Jesus is God" threads. Or, if you'd like, I could post it here. In it, I showed, using only scripture, and not any church doctrine or teaching, that the Trinity is taught in the Bible.
You think that God was mean in the Old Testament and then went to counseling in the inter-testament period, and is nice in the New Testament? You're in for a surprise.
Tell me, Freelight, How many of the people who died in the Flood were wicked? How many were righteous?
Tell me, Freelight, what is circumcision a symbol of? Do you even know?
Tell me Freelight, what are the animal sacrifices for?
Tell me, Freelight, what happens when people don't pay for their actions? What if they cannot pay for their crimes? Does the Bible ever say that slavery is wrong? Are there different types of slavery?
Tell me Freelight, what harmful decrees can come from a holy, righteous, just, and loving God, when not even the curse placed on Adam and Eve were meant for harm, but for their own benefit?
Fixed that for you.
They rejected Him not because of what the Bible says about Him, but because they couldn't accept what the Bible says of Him.
See Proverbs 49. I quoted it above.
He was not just a man, but also God.
God placed eternity into man, but man can die.
Your problem is that you're trying to apply characteristics of a Unitarian God to the Trinitarian God of the Bible.
Also...
Death is not annihilation. Death is separation.
Physical death is separation of body and spirit.
Spiritual death is separation of God and man.
Jesus Christ, who is God, died (both physically and spiritually) to pay the consequences of sin.
Remember Jesus said "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me"?
That's because, for the first time ever, God the Son experienced separation from God the Father.
God the Son died. God the Father raised God the Son from the dead. God raised Himself from the dead, as Jesus said:
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” - John 2:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John2:19&version=NKJV
Why do you not believe the same as His disciples, that Jesus was telling the Truth? They knew and understood He was God. Why can't you?
Try what's said in the Bible.
God can do anything He wants to do and is able to do. He cannot do anything that goes against His nature.
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Lets us DO reconsider these important points......
Lets us DO reconsider these important points......
Hi JR,
I will answer your commentary in snippets, trusting those wishing to follow the discussion will read former responses and follow along appropriately
My former inquiry and observations hold,....since there is no 'necessity' for Jesus beyond TO BE GOD, beyond theological presupposition and doctrinal posturing. It is a proposition or 'assumption' that must be presumed presuppositionally. Otherwise, a traditional orthodox monotheistic Unitarian theology, is just as good if not better. (granted my own Christology can allow for various divine attributes and qualities given to Jesus, as well as the term 'Christ' representing the divine light/spark/spirit/seed that exists in ALL MEN, since you can approach 'Christology' from different angles and dimensions withing any given context).
You're assuming a price of some kind has to be paid. Everyone suffers for his own sins, and also is 'saved' by his own repentance or reparation of any sin. - you can adopt or assume any kind of 'atonement theory' or 'redemption-concept',...but the universal concept of karma still holds, since all are "judged according to their work",.....every thought, word and deed has its 'effects' no matter what you believe.
I enjoy various atonement motifs and themes too, as student of universal science, philosophy and religion. But natural laws and principles still maintain, and the fundamentals of the ancient wisdom schools, because these propositions are universal.
I've treated such concepts of 'blood atonement' here, here and elsewhere, also having an older no longer extant thread called 'Atonement without blood'. Blood is not always necessary, but repentance and surrendered sacrifice of the soul to the living Spirit, has always been the eternal way, the way of re-turn to Source. It is the way of real sacrifice, being the soul itself on the altar of 'God'. What 'blood' represents in various metaphysical analogies holds within various themes or models, FIGURATIVELY speaking. 'God' only requires a surrendered heart and soul, effecting the transformation of genuine repentance.
I question the above in bold, and a call to research the implications of such. A man anointed/appointed by 'God' can serve as a mediator affording some dispensation of divine grace, but nothing can substitute for the soul itself in sacrificing (surrending) itself to the infinite Spirit.
The Psalms are wonderful inspired poems, yet within the cultural language and customs, we draw the eternal truths therein, and DO NOTE that David recognizes what the true sacrifices unto God are, while 'God' rejects religious ritualistic sacrifices that are offered with no genuine repentance involved, since those physical acts are then rendered profitless, having no value or efficacy.
Jesus being the Son of David, shows us the way of the Beloved, and that is the full surrender to God via the heart and soul, back to the way of true sacrifice, it is an inward and whole bodily sacrifice to the living Divine. Physical blood itself does not produce a transformation, but true heart and soul repentance.
See LA's thread - 'Atonement without blood according to freelight'
Lets us DO reconsider these important points......
Hi JR,
I will answer your commentary in snippets, trusting those wishing to follow the discussion will read former responses and follow along appropriately
My former inquiry and observations hold,....since there is no 'necessity' for Jesus beyond TO BE GOD, beyond theological presupposition and doctrinal posturing. It is a proposition or 'assumption' that must be presumed presuppositionally. Otherwise, a traditional orthodox monotheistic Unitarian theology, is just as good if not better. (granted my own Christology can allow for various divine attributes and qualities given to Jesus, as well as the term 'Christ' representing the divine light/spark/spirit/seed that exists in ALL MEN, since you can approach 'Christology' from different angles and dimensions withing any given context).
You're assuming a price of some kind has to be paid. Everyone suffers for his own sins, and also is 'saved' by his own repentance or reparation of any sin. - you can adopt or assume any kind of 'atonement theory' or 'redemption-concept',...but the universal concept of karma still holds, since all are "judged according to their work",.....every thought, word and deed has its 'effects' no matter what you believe.
I enjoy various atonement motifs and themes too, as student of universal science, philosophy and religion. But natural laws and principles still maintain, and the fundamentals of the ancient wisdom schools, because these propositions are universal.
I've treated such concepts of 'blood atonement' here, here and elsewhere, also having an older no longer extant thread called 'Atonement without blood'. Blood is not always necessary, but repentance and surrendered sacrifice of the soul to the living Spirit, has always been the eternal way, the way of re-turn to Source. It is the way of real sacrifice, being the soul itself on the altar of 'God'. What 'blood' represents in various metaphysical analogies holds within various themes or models, FIGURATIVELY speaking. 'God' only requires a surrendered heart and soul, effecting the transformation of genuine repentance.
I question the above in bold, and a call to research the implications of such. A man anointed/appointed by 'God' can serve as a mediator affording some dispensation of divine grace, but nothing can substitute for the soul itself in sacrificing (surrending) itself to the infinite Spirit.
The Psalms are wonderful inspired poems, yet within the cultural language and customs, we draw the eternal truths therein, and DO NOTE that David recognizes what the true sacrifices unto God are, while 'God' rejects religious ritualistic sacrifices that are offered with no genuine repentance involved, since those physical acts are then rendered profitless, having no value or efficacy.
Jesus being the Son of David, shows us the way of the Beloved, and that is the full surrender to God via the heart and soul, back to the way of true sacrifice, it is an inward and whole bodily sacrifice to the living Divine. Physical blood itself does not produce a transformation, but true heart and soul repentance.
See LA's thread - 'Atonement without blood according to freelight'
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
More food 4 thought.......
More food 4 thought.......
The Bible is a compilation of many different authors, writing with various reasons and agendas at the fore, with varying degrees of clarity, perception and abilities, which may affect the quality, content and truth of their writing
It does NOT. Not one orthodox Jew who stand by their holy scriptures believes such. A good many schools and sects of Unitarian Christians do not as well. These groups all highly esteem the Bible.
You might note that Paul claimed these mysteries as personal revelations, including them in his own special gospel message, and for the most part his gospel was/is different than the gospel taught by the original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem, that kept their theology pretty grounded still within Judaism, although modified in some ways by Jesus teachings.
See my first paragraph.
Intellectual honesty includes being surprised at every turn. Bring it on.
Drum roll........
One guess may be just as possible as another.
Well, Paul didnt think very highly of it, although he took matters into his own hands with Timothy from peer pressure. Beyond that, most things in religious writings have deeper symbolic values and meaning,...circumcision being the 'cutting away' of all that keeps one from God. - hence the cutting away of the flesh, the 'marking' oneself as being included in God's covenantal family, etc.
See my former commentary on 'blood atonement' concept. Genuine repentance is all that is necessary for returning to 'God'. - all else is figurative, symbolic, religious gesture/ritual, cosmetics.
See my former commentary on karma here
I dont pretend to be an expert on slavery, but there is an ethical principle that can be broken to varying degrees when it comes to human relations and authentic individual freedoms granted within such relationships. These may be modified by tradition or culture. Slavery laws obviously differ in our own time and culture, as compared to times indicated in the Old and New testaments. Would you enjoy being a slave? Or do you value your domestic and spiritual freedom? - I'd enjoy being a free son of God, for who the Son sets free.......
This is rather 'loaded'. Perhaps too loaded
When a 'god' commands wholesale genocide of human families, animal sacrifices (blood lust),...allows for human slavery, torture, suffering, death, etc.....I question the sanity of such a 'god' and my allegiance to respect such a 'god'. Call me a rebel.
I sometimes for nuance will write in upper case or lower case letters. My writings of 'YHWH' as 'yhwh' sometimes is just a nuance preference in any given context. The subject of the divine name is a subject in itself, and I did have a thread on it in my older "The Mighty I AM Presence' thread, no longer extant. We might also note that the 'meaning' of the divine name, 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' in its various forms, denotes the existential presence of 'God' in all space, time, eternity/infinity, which includes the divine indwelling within all souls that grant one individual existence, identity and being.. But that is for another thread. The 'I AM' presence indwells every personality that has conscious self-existence.
The 'God' presence is both individual and universal. Omnipresence. God is One. God is all.
Gnostic theology/cosmology is one of my fun subjects of exploration/study. I brought up Marcion and earlier gnostic schools since we are challenging the 'belief' (note its a 'belief') that Jesus is 'God' or 'YHWH'. Some did not accept Jesus God as being the same 'God' of the OT, because they differ alot in their style and theology. Paul's gospel certainly doesnt help in this respect because he comes off as being anti-mosaic law, and seems to discount alot of what YHWH is commanding in HIS LAW given to Moses....all for his own cosmic Christ savior-redeemer figure, whose redemption theme mirrors much of what mystery-religions were teaching in form and concept, especially in the Eucharist meal, and the joining with the dying, rising god in the afterlife.
Our research into the 'historical' and 'mythical' Christ will yield more wonderful findings.
More food 4 thought.......
The Bible is a compilation of many different authors, writing with various reasons and agendas at the fore, with varying degrees of clarity, perception and abilities, which may affect the quality, content and truth of their writing
It does NOT. Not one orthodox Jew who stand by their holy scriptures believes such. A good many schools and sects of Unitarian Christians do not as well. These groups all highly esteem the Bible.
You might note that Paul claimed these mysteries as personal revelations, including them in his own special gospel message, and for the most part his gospel was/is different than the gospel taught by the original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem, that kept their theology pretty grounded still within Judaism, although modified in some ways by Jesus teachings.
See my first paragraph.
Intellectual honesty includes being surprised at every turn. Bring it on.
Drum roll........
One guess may be just as possible as another.
Well, Paul didnt think very highly of it, although he took matters into his own hands with Timothy from peer pressure. Beyond that, most things in religious writings have deeper symbolic values and meaning,...circumcision being the 'cutting away' of all that keeps one from God. - hence the cutting away of the flesh, the 'marking' oneself as being included in God's covenantal family, etc.
See my former commentary on 'blood atonement' concept. Genuine repentance is all that is necessary for returning to 'God'. - all else is figurative, symbolic, religious gesture/ritual, cosmetics.
See my former commentary on karma here
I dont pretend to be an expert on slavery, but there is an ethical principle that can be broken to varying degrees when it comes to human relations and authentic individual freedoms granted within such relationships. These may be modified by tradition or culture. Slavery laws obviously differ in our own time and culture, as compared to times indicated in the Old and New testaments. Would you enjoy being a slave? Or do you value your domestic and spiritual freedom? - I'd enjoy being a free son of God, for who the Son sets free.......
This is rather 'loaded'. Perhaps too loaded
When a 'god' commands wholesale genocide of human families, animal sacrifices (blood lust),...allows for human slavery, torture, suffering, death, etc.....I question the sanity of such a 'god' and my allegiance to respect such a 'god'. Call me a rebel.
I sometimes for nuance will write in upper case or lower case letters. My writings of 'YHWH' as 'yhwh' sometimes is just a nuance preference in any given context. The subject of the divine name is a subject in itself, and I did have a thread on it in my older "The Mighty I AM Presence' thread, no longer extant. We might also note that the 'meaning' of the divine name, 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' in its various forms, denotes the existential presence of 'God' in all space, time, eternity/infinity, which includes the divine indwelling within all souls that grant one individual existence, identity and being.. But that is for another thread. The 'I AM' presence indwells every personality that has conscious self-existence.
The 'God' presence is both individual and universal. Omnipresence. God is One. God is all.
Gnostic theology/cosmology is one of my fun subjects of exploration/study. I brought up Marcion and earlier gnostic schools since we are challenging the 'belief' (note its a 'belief') that Jesus is 'God' or 'YHWH'. Some did not accept Jesus God as being the same 'God' of the OT, because they differ alot in their style and theology. Paul's gospel certainly doesnt help in this respect because he comes off as being anti-mosaic law, and seems to discount alot of what YHWH is commanding in HIS LAW given to Moses....all for his own cosmic Christ savior-redeemer figure, whose redemption theme mirrors much of what mystery-religions were teaching in form and concept, especially in the Eucharist meal, and the joining with the dying, rising god in the afterlife.
Our research into the 'historical' and 'mythical' Christ will yield more wonderful findings.
Last edited:
Freelight, I will compose my response over the next few days. I will post it when ready.
Judson50
New member
I don’t see why these verses are saying Jesus is not YHWH.
In the psalm, David is saying YHWH says to Adonia, the emphatic form for controller in Hebrew. Or YHWH (to exist) says to “My Controller” or master. Just like we see The Son speak to the Father, I would understand this text being The Father speaking to The Son. Just because it doesn’t say “YHWH says to YHWH” doesn’t negate Jesus is YHWH.
And in Isaiah, it is the spirit/breath of Adonia YHWH, because YHWH anointed... this is Isaiah speaking in a certain time and place, that echos what will be done in the future thought the messiah. Again, the text at the time it was written, hadn’t fully revealed Jesus (The Son). And the text doesn’t need to say YHWH anointed YHWH.
However as revelation progressed, Jesus became more clear.
The real question is, what did the Writers of the New Testament believe about Jesus? There are multiple verses where the NT author is called him YHWH.
Paul - Romans 10:8-9,13 Paul is clearly calling Jesus Lord, quoting The Greek translation of the Old Testament. And the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, the word Lord is YHWH I’m Joel 2:32. Therefore Paul is applying Old Testament YHWH texts to Jesus.
The author of Hebrews - chapter one applies Old Testament YHWJ verses to Jesus. Hebrews1:8-12; ps45:6-7, 102:25-27
John - John 8:58 and Ex3:13-15; John 1:23 refers to Isaiah 40:3 a where John applies the name YHWH and Elohim to Jesus
Jesus was crucified for blasphemy
Throughout the Old Testament YHWH is the one who created creation. And the New Testament Jesus is the one who is named as being the creator of creation. (John 1:3, Col 1:6, Heb 1:2 and Gen 1:1; is 42:5, 43:1)
So when we look at NT authors they apply OT texts about YHWH to Jesus we see that the NT authors did consider Jesus to be YHWH.
If the NT authors were wrong, and applied YHWH texts to Jesus in error then the those NT authors would need to be thrown out of what is considered theopneustos (God Breathed).
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Consider.................
Consider.................
Well, thats debatable, let alone what powers/authorities were behind the 'killing' of Jesus, whether Roman or Jewish reasons, and noting different gospel accounts.
But the problem of identity continues, since the orthodox Trinity formula always claims distinction of persons (NOT confusing the persons), so that YHWH (the Father) cannot be Christ (the Son), while the Son acts as the 'agent' of creation, the Deity using the 'logos' to create THRU, and this can further be relationally explained in various ways thru traditional greek-logos philosophy, since Philo and other greek/pagan philosophers were already expounding similar themes and concepts during the NT period and earlier.
You can only claim the MAN Jesus is YHWH by metaphysical gymnastics, since the man Jesus could never be Almighty 'God' by definition, even if you entertain some divine incarnation or human assumption, mix and merge humanity and divinity anyway you fancy. You're furthermore complicating Jesus as being the same being that commands genocide, slavery, animal blood sacrafice, human mutilation and other atrocities. Remember Jesus oftimes would say "you have heard it said of old,...BUT I SAY TO YOU....." - Jesus brought a better more correct spiritual truth, teaching or principle to REPLACE the older sayings, laws and assumptions of the previous dispensation. This appears to be a deviation from yhwh of the OT, and certain older Jewish customs and traditions.
And do note equations of Jesus as somehow being YHWH are self serving to those subscribing to a particular Christology. A 'God' cannot be the Son of himself (beyond some kind of pantheistic extension), but a God can produce a Son and/or sons, hence we see 'God' the Universal Father, being the Father of all generated, begotten beings. Only the Father alone is unbegotten.
Any passages using OT passages to apply to Jesus can be variously 'interpreted'. The bible is a compilations of books written by various human authors, some books maybe more inspired than others, but by no means infallible.
How do you determine or even 'prove' what passages are 'inspired' and which ones are more or less non-inspired or even erroneous?
Elsewhere I've contended the doctrine of 'biblical inerrancy' is 'unnecessary', since one can still use religious writings in an edifying way, without believing those writings are perfect. The burden of proof would be upon the 'claimant' of biblical inerrancy to make his case, but such is a matter of personal 'belief', not of absolute certainty. It becomes a matter of faith, but 'faith' can be misplaced or unintelligently applied.
Consider.................
Well, thats debatable, let alone what powers/authorities were behind the 'killing' of Jesus, whether Roman or Jewish reasons, and noting different gospel accounts.
But the problem of identity continues, since the orthodox Trinity formula always claims distinction of persons (NOT confusing the persons), so that YHWH (the Father) cannot be Christ (the Son), while the Son acts as the 'agent' of creation, the Deity using the 'logos' to create THRU, and this can further be relationally explained in various ways thru traditional greek-logos philosophy, since Philo and other greek/pagan philosophers were already expounding similar themes and concepts during the NT period and earlier.
You can only claim the MAN Jesus is YHWH by metaphysical gymnastics, since the man Jesus could never be Almighty 'God' by definition, even if you entertain some divine incarnation or human assumption, mix and merge humanity and divinity anyway you fancy. You're furthermore complicating Jesus as being the same being that commands genocide, slavery, animal blood sacrafice, human mutilation and other atrocities. Remember Jesus oftimes would say "you have heard it said of old,...BUT I SAY TO YOU....." - Jesus brought a better more correct spiritual truth, teaching or principle to REPLACE the older sayings, laws and assumptions of the previous dispensation. This appears to be a deviation from yhwh of the OT, and certain older Jewish customs and traditions.
And do note equations of Jesus as somehow being YHWH are self serving to those subscribing to a particular Christology. A 'God' cannot be the Son of himself (beyond some kind of pantheistic extension), but a God can produce a Son and/or sons, hence we see 'God' the Universal Father, being the Father of all generated, begotten beings. Only the Father alone is unbegotten.
Any passages using OT passages to apply to Jesus can be variously 'interpreted'. The bible is a compilations of books written by various human authors, some books maybe more inspired than others, but by no means infallible.
How do you determine or even 'prove' what passages are 'inspired' and which ones are more or less non-inspired or even erroneous?
Elsewhere I've contended the doctrine of 'biblical inerrancy' is 'unnecessary', since one can still use religious writings in an edifying way, without believing those writings are perfect. The burden of proof would be upon the 'claimant' of biblical inerrancy to make his case, but such is a matter of personal 'belief', not of absolute certainty. It becomes a matter of faith, but 'faith' can be misplaced or unintelligently applied.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
One's foundation is in 'God' himself..............Spirit
One's foundation is in 'God' himself..............Spirit
U betcha Judson
Yes, I do not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, that would take a giant leap of faith for starters. I use and value the book for my own research and study on various religious subjects, and see some books as more inspired than others. Such a varied collection of writings cannot hold to a standard of collective perfection, much less the assumption that any one religious book could be regarded as PERFECT. - does this deny any inspiration whatsoever to any given text? - of course not. I just find holding a dogma of 'biblical inerrancy' as unnecessary, and unprofitable. I still dive right into any given religious subject and textual study, regardless, and present my discoveries with just as much passion. I derive any light or inspiration in engaging the study itself, if indeed the spirit of truth is the teacher. Truth in the beginning and end, is all that matters eh. (expressed, articulated or represented in so many ways).
Again, you'll have to PROVE the Bible, the whole kit and kaboodle is 'God breathed', and to what extent, since there could be a few burps and hiccups along the way, since no human medium (channel) is perfect, granted further creative doctoring and editing to religious texts that happen down the ages (enter religious politics, etc.)
I see a traditional orthodox monotheistic Unitarian Theology just as good as a Trinitarian one, or any other variation, as long as that view has some integrity, foundation in true spiritual values, and can facilitate true human progress.
Since a Unitarian judeo-christian view holds YHWH as our Heavenly Father-God, this 'God' is also the 'God' and 'Father' of Yahshua, his anointed Son. Again, you can 'spin' it as you wish. I am getting back into studies on the 'tetragrammaton' though (see this thread here), and may do a part 2 on my previous lost thread on the 'I AM' Presence, from a universal persespective....even though I might sound like a true Jew, with a zeal for Yahweh in some posts! - but again,....the 'I AM' is omnipresent, and is reflected in one's own individual awareness, as 'God' looking back at himself thru so many individual facets. In this greater context of cosmic consciousness,...all creation is 'God' inter-acting thru the lens of every soul in the universe, as all things and beings are converging on a path of evolutionary progress, unfolding innate potential.
One's foundation is in 'God' himself..............Spirit
U betcha Judson
Yes, I do not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, that would take a giant leap of faith for starters. I use and value the book for my own research and study on various religious subjects, and see some books as more inspired than others. Such a varied collection of writings cannot hold to a standard of collective perfection, much less the assumption that any one religious book could be regarded as PERFECT. - does this deny any inspiration whatsoever to any given text? - of course not. I just find holding a dogma of 'biblical inerrancy' as unnecessary, and unprofitable. I still dive right into any given religious subject and textual study, regardless, and present my discoveries with just as much passion. I derive any light or inspiration in engaging the study itself, if indeed the spirit of truth is the teacher. Truth in the beginning and end, is all that matters eh. (expressed, articulated or represented in so many ways).
Again, you'll have to PROVE the Bible, the whole kit and kaboodle is 'God breathed', and to what extent, since there could be a few burps and hiccups along the way, since no human medium (channel) is perfect, granted further creative doctoring and editing to religious texts that happen down the ages (enter religious politics, etc.)
I see a traditional orthodox monotheistic Unitarian Theology just as good as a Trinitarian one, or any other variation, as long as that view has some integrity, foundation in true spiritual values, and can facilitate true human progress.
Since a Unitarian judeo-christian view holds YHWH as our Heavenly Father-God, this 'God' is also the 'God' and 'Father' of Yahshua, his anointed Son. Again, you can 'spin' it as you wish. I am getting back into studies on the 'tetragrammaton' though (see this thread here), and may do a part 2 on my previous lost thread on the 'I AM' Presence, from a universal persespective....even though I might sound like a true Jew, with a zeal for Yahweh in some posts!
- but again,....the 'I AM' is omnipresent, and is reflected in one's own individual awareness, as 'God' looking back at himself thru so many individual facets. In this greater context of cosmic consciousness,...all creation is 'God' inter-acting thru the lens of every soul in the universe, as all things and beings are converging on a path of evolutionary progress, unfolding innate potential.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
- Status