Maybe Christianity has Jesus Wrong: Jesus as Mystic

[siam]

It seems the purpose of there being a "Son of God" is related to the "original sin" concept---Yet, if Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Jew, he would not have understood the story of (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) as that of original sin---neither Jews nor Muslims understand it that way---God who is most merciful, most compassionate created all of creation in goodness (I think that's somewhere in Genesis as well?)
Therefore sinful man requiring sacrifice is a completely Christian misinterpretation.

In the general scheme of things---that the ONE God, most merciful, most compassionate, would send Messengers/Prophets/wisdom teachers to all of mankind to guide them---is reasonable. Therefore, Highly spiritual persons, be they Jesus Christ(pbuh) or Buddha/Prince Siddartha or others would experience the Divine in similar ways would not be unusual, nor the similarity in their messages. That people would misunderstand and begin to worship Buddha or Jesus Christ(pbuh) as God incarnate/avatar/son of God....etc is unfortunately simply intellectual laziness---one gets so caught up in worshipping the messenger---one (conveniently) forgets the message---(a message that is about DOING---not endlessly talking about dogma....)

God's guidance is universal---but the Jews misinterperted it into a "chosen people" idea---that they were somehow the ONLY beloved of God (Pride/ego). The Christians re-interpreted this into their "son of God"/Trinity concept to give themselves the status of "the saved people". (thus making them also beloved of God---in that God saves only Christians) Making Jesus Christ(pbuh) into a mere Prophet, one among many---might take away their "specialness"......

But ...the Quran confirms that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was special as a Prophet/Masih---why?----It has to do with Judaism----That is, Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was a Jewish Prophet (sent to the Jews) and because of the mizvot concerning false Prophets, his birth, his life, was an unmistakable, obvious and clear signs from God of his Prophethood. Regardless of such clear signs---the Jews followed their mitzvot regarding false Prophets.

However, the Quran is clear----Jesus Christ(pbuh) was NOT killed by the Jews. He WAS a true Prophet from God. ----God is Omnicient, Omnipotent. The beginning of his life, his life on earth, and the end of his life were all clear signs of his Prophethood.

The mitzvot......
To heed the call of every prophet in each generation, provided that he neither adds to, nor takes away from the Torah (Deut. 18:15) (affirmative).
Not to prophesy falsely (Deut. 18:20) (CCN175).
Not to refrain from putting a false prophet to death nor to be in fear of him (Deut. 18:22) (negative).

Those who believe Jesus Christ(pbuh) is killed by the Jews have a problem----he was a "false Prophet" (or God is not omnipotent)---but if he is "son of God" --not a Prophet---this problem is solved. (Deicide)

In the end, what should really be important is not the endless debates about the stauts of Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) but HOW his message can transform both the individual and the world for the better-----If only Chrsitians spent more time on these types of discussions.......

 

[SalamChristian]

Peace brother Siam,

(a message that is about DOING---not endlessly talking about dogma....)

I see you are frustrated by how far out this thread discussion has been. I don't blame you. It has been pretty deep, and might seem pointless to you. HOWEVER, establishing the exact meaning of what the phrase "son of God" or "children of God" might mean has helped erase a stumbling block to my further reading the Qu'ran. So shouldn't you be happy that I had this discussion, even though it seems pointless to you? And doesn't my attempt to reach out and understand the Qu'ran DO something in the world? Don't you think it's good that some Americans are reading the Qu'ran with an open mind? Don't you think this might be good for things like world peace? Isn't that the message of Jesus (pbuh)?

The Christians re-interpreted this into their "son of God"/Trinity concept to give themselves the status of "the saved people". (thus making them also beloved of God---in that God saves only Christians) Making Jesus Christ(pbuh) into a mere Prophet, one among many---might take away their "specialness"......

As I said above, I am actually thinking about this question in an attempt to look at the Qu'ran with an open mind. The intention of this is not to re-affirm my ego, but rather to open my mind to accepting the holy book of a people I do not hate. I have several Muslim friends. I want to consider their sacred beliefs in an honest, loving way. And the point of the "God's chosen son/beloved son" statement, from my view, is simply that we all must unite behind Jesus (pbuh) at his return to help him slay the anti-christ. It is about unity/solidarity of believers in doing Allah's (swt) final will on this earth. That does not mean that I am more special than you. You claim to accept Jesus (pbuh) as the Masih (along with his sinless life and annunciation, which are important), so I am not that narrow-minded as to dismiss your righteousness, brother.

However, the Quran is clear----Jesus Christ(pbuh) was NOT killed by the Jews. He WAS a true Prophet from God. ----God is Omnicient, Omnipotent. The beginning of his life, his life on earth, and the end of his life were all clear signs of his Prophethood.

Aren't Ayahs which talk about prophets being slain in the Qu'ran?

Shakir:
"And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew!"

Pickthal:
......"Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye slay?"

Sura Al-Baqara, 2:87

Pickthal:
"Verily Allah heard the saying of those who said, (when asked for contributions to the war): "Allah, forsooth, is poor, and we are rich!" We shall record their saying with their slaying of the prophets wrongfully and We shall say: Taste ye the punishment of burning!"

Shakir:
....."I will record what they say, and their killing the prophets unjustly, and I will say: Taste the chastisement of burning."

Sura Aal-e-Imran, 3:181

Therefore sinful man requiring sacrifice is a completely Christian misinterpretation.

Why does Allah (swt) send us messengers? Should we not remember already that we are in error? Why must he send us the same commands again? Didn't Allah (swt) make his commands clear to us from the beginning of our existence? And are not some of the messengers mistreated and killed and do not some of them suffer for the glory of Allah (swt), as the verses I quoted above indicate? Is that not a sacrafice they themselves are making for the glory of Allah (swt)? I think of Job when I ponder these questions. Job was a submissive, righteous man. Iblis told God that Job was not submissive, and God told him that he was wrong, but he allowed Iblis to punish him so that by Job's suffering, God might be glorified. And Job was happy to do this, because he was a good servant of Allah (swt). But Job's suffering was only bodily, and temporary. Iblis was not allowed to harm Job's heart, or spirit, or mind, for those are the places of Allah's religion. It was the same for Jesus (pbuh), the way that I look at it. Physical, bodily death is meaningless to Allah (swt). The bottom line is that they did not harm the spirit of Jesus (pbuh). Maybe "sacrifice" isn't the best word. Maybe we should say "suffering." Messengers had to come to us who would suffer. Or, better yet, why don't we say "offering." That does not imply that something must be destroyed. Rather, it is given to God, to be used for his purposes.

Salaam Alaikum,
Bob

 

[siam]

Peace to you also SC

No---I am not frustrated with this thread---I am frustrated with Christians in general debating Dogma instead of following Jesus Christ(pbuh)---However. the same frustration also applies to us Muslims who do not follow the wisdom and Guidance of the Quran and instead follow their own (egoic) desires under a false banner of Islam.---the state of the Ummah today is nothing to brag about.......

final will?!!!----No--I don't much care about that stuff I'm afraid----I am more interested in all of us human beings using our wisdom teachings to make this world a better place---if not for ourselves---then for our children..........

Ayahs of the Quran----it is unwise to pick and choose Ayahs without having read the whole Quran----unless you understand the ayahs within the context of the WHOLE Quran, you will only misunderstand. Concepts in the Quran do not stand alone---they are interwoven with other concepts to form a Unity---that goes back to the basic/fundamental concept of Tawheed.

By the way ----here is something from the Jefferson Bible----apparently the Smithsonian is restoring it......(I underlined some words for emphasis)

57: But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
58: For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
59: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
60: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
61: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
62: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

as for your questions----

Why does Allah (swt) send us messengers? ---To Guide human beings because we are forgetful.
Should we not remember already that we are in error?---It seems human beings tend to find the Shema/Tawheed and other messages of the ONE God difficult to comprehend and always fall into polytheism---worshipping the messenger instead of following the message/Guidance.
Why must he send us the same commands again?---because we are forgetful and tend to follow what is convenient (ego/pride) instead of actually doing.
Didn't Allah (swt) make his commands clear to us from the beginning of our existence?---Yes he did
And are not some of the messengers mistreated and killed and do not some of them suffer for the glory of Allah (swt), as the verses I quoted above indicate? ---The verses you quoted indicate that human beings---out of convenience and Pride/ego/arrogance reject Prophet that Guide them away from their Pride/arrogance/ego towards the straight path. (the path of goodness, humility, gratefulness to God)
Is that not a sacrafice they themselves are making for the glory of Allah (swt)? ---The Prophets are fulfilling their responsibilities of bringing Guidance. If in the course of doing their duties they encounter difficulties---it is for their spiritual benefit--as all human trials are, for all human beings---regardless of if they are a Prophet or not.
---offerring/sufferring idea only works if you believe in "original sin"----As I already explained---Neither Jews not Muslims beleive in original sin and Jesus Christ(pbuh) being a Jew--wouldn't have either.

 

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
It seems the purpose of there being a "Son of God" is related to the "original sin" concept---Yet, if Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Jew, he would not have understood the story of (Prophet)Adam(pbuh) as that of original sin---neither Jews nor Muslims understand it that way---God who is most merciful, most compassionate created all of creation in goodness (I think that's somewhere in Genesis as well?)

Therefore sinful man requiring sacrifice is a completely Christian misinterpretation.

Coupla things:
1) The concept of sacrifice for human sin is all over the whole sacrificial system of Judaism up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. That's just fact. Not talking about "original sin"...just the idea the human sin can be expiated by sacrificial acts on the part of the believer. The Jewish Second Temple system, extant when Jesus was alive, would be unintelligible if this weren't the case.

2) I've been a Christian for some time now. I have yet to see someone directly attribute the Jesus-as-Son-of-God idea to the concept of "original sin." Even the Eastern Orthodox don't believe in original sin (ala Calvin, etc). Could you explain to me how the Son of God idea emerged specifically dealing with any concept of original sin? I'd love to see the sources on that.

********************************

Siam:
That people would misunderstand and begin to worship Buddha or Jesus Christ(pbuh) as God incarnate/avatar/son of God....etc is unfortunately simply intellectual laziness---one gets so caught up in worshipping the messenger---one (conveniently) forgets the message---(a message that is about DOING---not endlessly talking about dogma....)

I'd say that the best way to honor and/or venerate a Messenger is to appropriately follow the Message. Otherwise, it's merely sentimentality and the Messenger's wasted time.

*********************************
Siam:
However, the Quran is clear----Jesus Christ(pbuh) was NOT killed by the Jews. He WAS a true Prophet from God. ----God is Omnicient, Omnipotent. The beginning of his life, his life on earth, and the end of his life were all clear signs of his Prophethood.
The mitzvot......
To heed the call of every prophet in each generation, provided that he neither adds to, nor takes away from the Torah (Deut. 18:15) (affirmative).
Not to prophesy falsely (Deut. 18:20) (CCN175).
Not to refrain from putting a false prophet to death nor to be in fear of him (Deut. 18:22) (negative).
Those who believe Jesus Christ(pbuh) is killed by the Jews have a problem----he was a "false Prophet" (or God is not omnipotent)---but if he is "son of God" --not a Prophet---this problem is solved. (Deicide)

“That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise"
Surah 4:157-158

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is true that Jesus was only APPARENTLY "killed" and "crucified"...that somehow it only LOOKED LIKE Jesus was killed and crucified by whatever means. That's kind of irrelevant to the fact that, as far as we know historically, attempts WERE made on Jesus' life by his fellow Jewish believers. And there's evidence that part of the reason WHY this was the case was due to Jesus' language of union and closeness with God.

 

[YieldedOne]

Fivesolas:
I am going to begin at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1 and begin to work through it. None of what I am writing here is copied from another website but is the simple result of my own reading of the Scripture.

Ok. The first question I need to ask is this: How are we approaching the texts? You said this:

It must be assumed that the biblical record is accurate. Even if you disagree with that, the argument you are presenting is from the biblical record, therefore the biblical record must be presumed to be an accurate account of Jesus words.

I agreed to that, for the sake of argument. As the same time, to say that the biblical record is "accurate" means different things to different people. I am not a literalist or a fundamentalist Christian. I am much more about historical-critical, yet faithful appropriation of the biblical texts (ala Gordon and Fee's "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" ) What this means is that I don't read all the texts the same, but according to the genres and contexts those genres imply. In other words, the biblical testimony is "accurate" for the purposes and intentions for which the authors set about their writing. That's going to be EXTREMELY important for this discussion if it's going to go on.

Just giving an example. I'm sure you are aware of the discrepancies between some of the events in Synoptic Gospels and John. Without some pretty bad atttempts at harmonization, it's just understood that the Gospels are NOT straight up 21st century attempts at demarcation of historical events...but are Gospels INTENED to make a point. Just look at the end of John...

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The author makes the claim UP FRONT that this book is specifically written kerygmatically to engender belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Meaning it's not some absolutely objective view into the life and times of Jesus. Even conservative scholars will say this.

So...that's the stance I'm taking with John and the other texts we'll be dealing with.

Are you cool with that, Fivesolas?

 

[Sol Invictus]

The Greek phrase commonly translated as "only begotten son" is actually more like "my chosen son." However, it could also be interpreted as the "son from me chosen." Many Christian bibles translate this phrase as "my beloved son." That fits with the Qu'ran's description of Jesus (pbuh) as blessed by God all the days of his life, and on his death, and on his resurrection (Maryam 19:33).

no, the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Look at that closely.

"Made himself nothing"

"Did not count equality with God something to be grasped."

"taking the form of a servant"

Human self-emptying unto divine exaltation.

This completely squares with the "Jesus as Mystic" and "Jesus as God's Messiah" views.

i would sincerely doubt that given that it starts with the claim that jesus is himself god, and then takes on the form of a servant to accomplish redemption for humanity. it isn't human self-emptying at all, if anything it would be divine "self-emptying".

 

[YieldedOne]

Sol Invictus:
the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son.

You're talking about "monogeneis", right?

Well...all that really leads to is saying that Jesus has a unique "sonship" with God. That as a "son of God" (Remember Psalm 82!), Jesus has a UNIQUE relationship with the God that brought him forth as Messiah. That doesn't NECESSARILY imply divinity.

The unspoken assumption is that unique sonship with God necessarily means that the "unique son" shares God's NATURE by way of that "sonship". That assumption is not true.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol Invictus:
the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son.

You're talking about "monogeneis", right?

Well...all that really leads to is saying that Jesus has a unique "sonship" with God. That doesn't NECESSARILY imply divinity. Let's check...

feels like i've been copying and pasting this a lot lately:

It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.

 

[Fivesolas]

YieldedOne:

The way I am approaching the text is under sound hermeneutical principles. I am assuming for the momement that you are familiar with those. By the biblical record being accurate, for our discussion sake, I merely mean that if we get to a text, it hardly serves the argument to begin to debate the authenticity of the text. For our argument sake, we are proceeding that the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus actually did and actually said. Whether you believe that message or not is another topic.

Sound biblical hermenutics is based on the historical-GRAMMATICAL method, not the historical-critical/higher criticism. By begining with a historical-critical method, we begin with a negation of what we actually already seemed to agree to: that the text of the NT is reliable. If we don't proceed along the lines of the historical-grammatical approach, then we have no text to deal with. We will end up in endless discussions from Wellhausen, Kant, Schliermacher, Strauss, redaction criticism, et.

And your post proves the point. Your already bringing into the discussion synoptic issues that are from the higher-critical camps. I am not saying that those subjects are not worth discussion, but they do not serve our purpose here.

Also, you should assume I have read the Gospel of John (and the entire NT) several times. I have been a Christian for 17 years. I am very familiar with the principles of understand an entire book of the Bible.

So, to answer your question...no, I am not cool with beginning with the higher-critical method.

 

[YieldedOne]

Sol Invictus:
i would sincerely doubt that given that it starts with the claim that jesus is himself god, and then takes on the form of a servant to accomplish redemption for humanity. it isn't human self-emptying at all, if anything it would be divine "self-emptying".

Christian theologians don't only locate the kenosis merely to the PERSON of Christ, but also to his human activity. Meaning that, as a full human being, Jesus completely surrendered his human will to the Divine Will of God. That's what Gethsemane was about.


*******************************

Sol Invictus:
It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.

I've heard this logic before. It's old church. The problem is simple: It's reading WAAAAAY too much into things. Again, it is absolutely within the textual meaning to say that Jesus is the uniquely originated, one-of-a-kind "son" of God brought forth for God's purposes. It does not INHERENTLY deal with the tranference of nature (ala parental transfer of qualities), especially divine nature. Look at the Septuagint usages in the wiki article already cited.

 

[YieldedOne]

Fivesola:
Sound biblical hermenutics is based on the historical-GRAMMATICAL method, not the historical-critical/higher criticism. By begining with a historical-critical method, we begin with a negation of what we actually already seemed to agree to: that the text of the NT is reliable. If we don't proceed along the lines of the historical-grammatical approach, then we have no text to deal with. We will end up in endless discussions from Wellhausen, Kant, Schliermacher, Strauss, redaction criticism, et.

My bad. Wrong word usage. Historical-grammatical is what I meant. Not higher-criticism. You know about Gordan and Fee's book, right? It's historical-grammatical. Standard textbook for conservative, evangelical seminaries, pretty much.

***********************************
Fivesolas:
And your post proves the point. Your already bringing into the discussion synoptic issues that are from the higher-critical camps. I am not saying that those subjects are not worth discussion, but they do not serve our purpose here.

It doesn't serve our purposes to not acknowledge the genre of the Gospels and how that can affect the whole discussion we are having. Like the fact that we are not talking about "pure history" when we talk about the Gospels. That IS being in the historical-grammatical camp, yes?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol Invictus:
I've heard this logic before. It's old church. The problem is simple: It's reading WAAAAAY too much into things. Again, it is absolutely within the textual meaning to say that Jesus is the uniquely originated, one-of-a-kind "son" of God brought forth for God's purposes. It does not INHERENTLY deal with the tranference of nature (ala parental transfer of qualities), especially divine nature. Look at the Septuagint usages in the wiki article already cited.

hmm, i find it somewhat strange that i would be pointed towards the usage in the LXX when the christian usage of the term would be differing from the jewish usage. that is to say that it is not blasphemous for a jew to have claimed to be the son of god or the christ etc. but rather, jesus used these terms in a completely different manner than was customary and the matter is that when one looks at the words of jesus and the bible as a whole they will see that the interpretation is warranted. for instance:

And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” – Matthew 26:62-66 NKJV

Clearly the foremost authority of that era’s Judaism understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. He claimed divinity in that he declared that he would descend from heaven with “the Power” (i.e. the ultimate power) the very power of God and did so through the use of language only used of the One true God—YHWH. The reader should note that the idiom “coming on the clouds of heaven” is used throughout the Old Testament to speak of God when he is about to judge, nations, peoples, etc.—it is a pronouncement of judgement upon sinful man. We find this use in Isaiah 19:1, Jeremiah 4:13-14, Zephaniah 1:15-17 to simply name a few. Hence one can understand why he was charged with the death penalty by the Sanhedrin for his supposed blasphemy seeing as he claimed the prerogatives of God himself. He did not say that they would see god coming on the clouds of heaven but rather him and that is quite telling because this is the language that the Old Testament uses precisely when God is revealing his wrath.

 

[YieldedOne]

But let's begin...

Fivesolas:
John 1:1-5; 14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

One would hope we could end the dicussion right here, as the words are quite plain. If in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and that Word that was God become flesh and dwelt among us, whom we know John is speaking of Jesus, then it is clear this text is saying Jesus is God manifest in flesh, or human form. Regardless of what one believes about the truthfulness of this statement, it seems hardly necessary to show that this is indeed what the text is saying.

Got that. The author of John 1:1 most likely refers to Jesus.

*************************

Fivesolas:
Concerning this testimony of who Jesus is, how does this then compare to a mystic like Mansur? There is no indication that in any mystic, be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise, that they are claiming themselves to be uncreated. Not even the man in South America these days who is claiming to actually be Jesus returned is not saying that his origin was anything other than a human being. What you have here in the opening of the Gospel of John is the testimony that Jesus is the eternal, uncreated Creator.

This is the testimony of one of Jesus' followers. His FOLLOWERS attributed this to him.

Do you realize that after Buddha's death, some of his followers raised his personal status to uncreated divinity...even when he talked about no such thing for himself? It's possible. And we can't act like it's not.

**************************
Fivesolas:
A second piece of evidence comes from John 2:23-25

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. "

How is it that Jesus knew all men? What kind of man, prophet, or as the OP alleges, mystic, can have universal knowledge of all men? Moreover, to know "what is in man" Do you suppose this text is saying Jesus knew what they had for lunch? Or is it saying that Jesus knew all men, what they are like, even their very thoughts. How can a mere man know such things?

This seems to be an overliteralistic taking of this text. Unless you are going to say that Jesus was a top level psychic who read all human minds at the same time (ie "knew all men"), it makes much MORE sense to say that Jesus knew well the human condition via his connection with God through the Spirit. He knew the fallenness of humanity in the world and didn't trust that. Now which is the better interpretation: Jesus as "knower" of human fallenness or Jesus as "Professor X", a world class telepath!

And even IF one did decide to take the latter route (Jesus as Omega-Class Telepath), this need be explained by nothing more than the Power of God in Jesus via the Holy Spirit. (Surely you've heard of spiritual gifts like "word of knowledge", right?) It's straight up and down ORTHODOXY that the miracles that Jesus did, he did AS HUMAN completely by the Power of the Spirit...NOT by his own divinity. That would lead to all kinds of heresies. You can check it for yourself in different commentaries, both Eastern and Western.

***************************
Fivesolas:
John 3:36
"He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

This is entirely absurd to ascribe to any man. If someone came along and said this to me, the only way this could or should be obeyed is if the one speaking is actually God Himself. Jesus is saying that whoever believes in Him has eternal life. And the one who does not, does not have eternal life.

Tell me, who can say such thing, even if he be a prophet, unless he himself is God? And what mystic has ever made the claim that eternal life was in them and that they themselves were necessary for it. Do not the mystics rather say they are God, and you can be God too?

Can you show me conclusively how these statements absolutely CANNOT be made by a human being in mystical union with God?

 

[YieldedOne]

I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.

i'm pretty sure that i quoted from matthew as well (and i think that the same exchange is to be found in one more gospel as well), did you miss my post? that said, what would it matter? if the bible is the word of god then shouldn't we believe all parts of it?

 

[SalamChristian]

the greek word literally means the only generated one which actually would imply divinity and is the basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son. You're talking about "monogeneis", right? Well...all that really leads to is saying that Jesus has a unique "sonship" with God. That as a "son of God" (Remember Psalm 82!), Jesus has a UNIQUE relationship with the God that brought him forth as Messiah. That doesn't NECESSARILY imply divinity. The unspoken assumption is that unique sonship with God necessarily means that the "unique son" shares God's NATURE by way of that "sonship". That assumption is not true.

Peace Sol,

for the particular verses you quote, I have considered those as well, and looked at the Greek, and I was under the impression that they referred to uniqueness as well. "mono"-one of / "genous"-kind, like Genus in our modern day usage. One-of-a-kind. Messiah...chosen one. In John 1:14, I see the doxan, charitos, and aleitheias as characteristics imputed by the Father onto the Son. Rhetorically in the verse, I see the point of making the connection, again, as testifying to Jesus as Messiah. Essentially, it is saying--Look! He was full of such grace and charity and glory, that he must have been the chosen son of the father!

He claimed divinity in that he declared that he would descend from heaven with “the Power” (i.e. the ultimate power) the very power of God and did so through the use of language only used of the One true God—YHWH.

I was under the impression this was referring to the Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7, not to YHWH.

I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.

One of my professors here at school made a great point about these verses. The word Logos is absolutely unlike any that we have in the English language. It refers to vocabulary/reason/natural law all at the same time. It is the essence of the mind--cognition--as well as all that is outside of the mind--natural law. The closest word/concept that we are familiar with, honestly, is Torah. Torah represented simultaneously God's word, his plan/will, and his law--making Christ the incarnation of the spirit of the law. Certainly the English translation of "Word" falls far short of the mark. Indeed, even the fact we use "word" to translate it opens up the point that logos does not imply singularity of being. Christ is God's "Word," but a word exists inside of an entire vocabulary, and that is what the word "Logos" truly represents. This, as well, helps line up these passages with the later points about the Father being greater than the Son.

Peace

 

[YieldedOne]

SolInvictus:
And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” – Matthew 26:62-66 NKJV

Clearly the foremost authority of that era’s Judaism understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. He claimed divinity in that he declared that he would descend from heaven with “the Power” (i.e. the ultimate power) the very power of God and did so through the use of language only used of the One true God—YHWH. The reader should note that the idiom “coming on the clouds of heaven” is used throughout the Old Testament to speak of God when he is about to judge, nations, peoples, etc.—it is a pronouncement of judgement upon sinful man. We find this use in Isaiah 19:1, Jeremiah 4:13-14, Zephaniah 1:15-17 to simply name a few. Hence one can understand why he was charged with the death penalty by the Sanhedrin for his supposed blasphemy seeing as he claimed the prerogatives of God himself. He did not say that they would see god coming on the clouds of heaven.

Hmmm...Actually, I think that the "blasphemy" was from Jesus claiming to be the "Son of Man" spoken of in Daniel 7:13-14.

I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Some things VERY important to note.Basically, the "son of man" is the person who comes before the "Ancient of Days" (ie God) and is exalted into total Lordship over all by God. So when Jesus said what he said, it was obvious what he was saying:

"Yes, I am the one that Daniel prophesied about. I am the Messiah who will be given rulership over all by God Himself."

There was no claim to Jesus' inherent divinity at all! Only the claim that Jesus had a unique, close relationship to God such that would be given kingly dominion over ALL PEOPLES (including the religious leaders judging Jesus) by God himself as God's Messiah.

THIS was the "blasphemy." And if you think about it, it makes sense. All of the religious leaders would have known the Daniel passage well. And it would have been instant offense for a person to claim that for themselves. We can even see this after Jesus' death even with Stephen's stoning in Acts...

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him.

Now, doesn't this make SENSE with the Daniel 7 passage? The "Son of Man" at the "right hand" of the "Ancient of Days", God? This is tantamount to pronounce Jesus God's chosen King and Messiah. But NOTHING TO DO with Jesus' eternal pre-existent sonship.

See that?

 

[SalamChristian]

Now, doesn't this make SENSE with the Daniel 7 passage? The "Son of Man" at the "right hand" of the "Ancient of Days", God? This is tantamount to pronounce Jesus God's chosen King and Messiah. But NOTHING TO DO with Jesus' eternal pre-existent sonship.

That's exactly what I saw. I am glad you wrote this long message making the case for it, lol, because I didn't want to do it. :~)

 

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
for the particular verses you quote, I have considered those as well, and looked at the Greek, and I was under the impression that they referred to uniqueness as well. "mono"-one of / "genous"-kind, like Genus in our modern day usage. One-of-a-kind. Messiah...chosen one.

Yeppers.

********************
SalamChrstian:
I was under the impression this was referring to the Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7, not to YHWH.

YESSIR! That's exactly right! :shade:

***********************

YO: I find it very peculiar that the BULK of the argumentation for the eternal pre-existence of Christ (which is REALLY what we are talking about, not merely Christ as "God's son" ) comes from essentially ONE passage (John 1:1-3) from ONE Gospel.

SC: One of my professors here at school made a great point about these verses. The word Logos is absolutely unlike any that we have in the English language. It refers to vocabulary/reason/natural law all at the same time. It is the essence of the mind--cognition--as well as all that is outside of the mind--natural law. The closest word/concept that we are familiar with, honestly, is Torah. Torah represented simultaneously God's word, his plan/will, and his law--making Christ the incarnation of the spirit of the law. Certainly the English translation of "Word" falls far short of the mark. Indeed, even the fact we use "word" to translate it opens up the point that logos does not imply singularity of being. Christ is God's "Word," but a word exists inside of an entire vocabulary, and that is what the word "Logos" truly represents. This, as well, helps line up these passages with the later points about the Father being greater than the Son.

The problem is a significant one. It seems fairly apparent that Hellenistic thought and Neoplatonist influence came into play here. Just look at Philo of Alexandria's take on what the Logos is. Muslims are very astute to point this out. Sure, the Psalms mention the creative "word" of God...but DEFINITELY NOT in the same neo-platonic meaning seen in John 1. The greek term "Logos" was used in the sense of corresponding to "word"...but also the Logos ideology was brought BACK INTO the idea of God's creative "word".

In short, you can't go to the Old Testament by itself WITHOUT HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE and come up with the Logos idea, as John 1 has it. No way.

-------------------------------------------------------

Logos in Hellenistic Judaism
In the Septuagint the term logos is used for the word of God in the creation of heaven in Psalm 33:6, and in some related contexts.

Philo of Alexandria
Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.

In short, John 1:1 may not have even BEEN THERE if it weren't for Philo's influence.