Was Jesus God?
Submitted by JStaller on Tue, 2007-12-04 01:27.
Been kicking this one around lately. At great risk to my sanity, I thought I'd pose the question to a wider audience. One thing I love about these forums is the different perspectives each poster brings to the table.
Was Jesus God?
How "much" God was Jesus?
Was Jesus fallible in any way? Limited?
I'd also like to know what you guys (and gals) think about Jesus being "in" us, or us being in Jesus--does that make us Divine? How much?
(I should have mentioned--I'm gonna play advocate for whatever side I see fit. I'll sound like a heretic, but really I'm a saint. Trust me... Really. No, seriously, it's okay.)
JStaller et al
Your post is with two points.
1. Being the Bible not ordered as a tight Christian reference, or something like that.
YOU SAID
But these same Christians fail to notice that Christians are never asked by the Bible nor God to build our faith on the Bible; we are asked to build our faith on Jesus Christ.
There are passages in the bible which will show that it is the Christian "text-book." I think a long discussion about that at this point will prove to deviate from our current thread.
In a short example, even Christ quoted the Old Testament. He, too, was scripture for scripture.
Why do I function as such? Well so as not to deviate from the Bible's teachings. (History, you will learn if you put the Bible first, will follow the Scriptures.)
I also see where you are standing from. Historical facts and other such knowledge (languages, an open mind, etc) are important when one wishes to learn the deeper understanding of the Scriptures. But using these but not acknowledging the Bible as a "Christian text/rule book" will make any belief you will like to have incomplete. Discussion on this should be some other time. Through email if you'd like. So it doesn't get "posty"
And yes I too am for a more dynamic understanding of the Scriptures. Ex: I and the Father are one. If we do not know that the one there in old language doesn't mean one in number but one in essence we will be mistaken to believe that the Father is the Son.
2. As for your second topic. That's correct also; your history is correct (I was even enlightened on some things). The Psalmist does not bother with small or capital G, but we do. But for the purposes of the Jews then and us discussing now, read this first:
John 10:30-34 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods
They wanted to stone Him for claiming to be God, but not claiming to be a god. While the Psalmist didn't bother with the "g" form, I believe if you check (now, here's where all that knowledge will be useful) the old languages that the God in 33 isn't the same as the gods in 34.
Thus they didn't stone Him, since as per the Psalmist they were all gods, or sons of God as you correctly shown.
The history is correct and when examined in the Scriptures we see their "value." Why, for example, God told the Jews to offer sacrifices for their sins in the Old Testament. So that in the NT, Jesus can be sacrificed for all of our sins.
Thus even if bombed with historical facts, the Scriptures remain true. It is only that not all are enlightned by the Holy Spirit as Jesus said when He was asked why HE spoke in parables.
So while you still turn some things in your head, I believe you should be given the best answer for this or any particular question you might have so as not to be further confused. I have posted my YM ID, questions are welcome and will be answered using the Scriptures still.
I also had a good time reading the history you put here. I learned a lot of things. It will be good to talk to each other more.
God bless