Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,223 Year: 5,480/9,624 Month: 505/323 Week: 2/143 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus - Wholly Man - Wholly God
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 42 of 105 (862051)
08-30-2019 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-30-2019 6:53 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:
Well, that was the point of the formulation that has Him being Wholly God and Wholly Man, and it seems rather a stretch to insist on the term Logos over the fleshly implications of being born in a human womb, but that's what we are told, that he was born in a human womb as flesh and blood so that His being wholly God and wholly Man has that fleshly meaning. That was the whole point of all the theological wrangles that ended up in the Athanasian Creed, that defined His physical being as a "Hypostatic Union."
I don't question at all that Mary was His biological mother. The question we were discussing is how Jesus came to embody the true nature of God the Father.
Faith writes:
You make me glad I'm only a stupid fundamentalist who doesn't have to second-guess the scriptures, just believe them. And what I believe does seem to be in synch with the history of traditional Christian theology, which is reassuring too.
I've read numerous posts of yours and although I often disagree with what you write, you are not stupid. I don't see it as second-guessing the Scriptures but a question of how to understand them. It isn't that simple when you read something meant for an audience 2000 years ago and more, and then simply try and overlay a 21st century understanding over it. Certainly the nativity story is pretty consistent with traditional theology. I do still question it though and don't see it as a particularly important issue.
Faith writes:
That's a rather roundabout or abstract way of "understanding the true nature of God in Jesus it seems to me, way too intellectualized. But I don't think the incarnation is the key to that understanding particularly anyway, it merely gives us a solid simple understanding that He was "made flesh and dwelt among us." God is happy to save simpletons so He didn't make the scriptures as hard to understand as all that.
I pretty much agree. We have as part of our service a piece with the line it; so complex so simple, so clear so mysterious.
The Christian message of that as humans we are to follow the Golden Rule. Pretty simple. It is when we build a theology around that it gets more complicated.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 44 of 105 (862054)
08-30-2019 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
08-30-2019 7:14 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:
Well, the types do happen to be simply THERE, in the Old Testament scriptures themselves, in different books from different periods of time too. These interpretations aren't imposed on the text, they are simply there, and they make a marvelous unity of the 66 books of the Bible which you prefer to see as fragmented. There are a lot more types than the few I mentioned, the OT is thick with them, all defining the nature and character of the Messiah to come, and from times when the idea of that Messiah was very vague and far from the reality who finally appeared in the person of Jesus Christ. If anybody put these types in "neat little boxes" it was the Holy Spirit since the people involved had hardly a clue to any of it.
Actually I do agree that the OT isn’t completely fragmented. I see the OT as being a narrative that tells the Israel story with their evolving understanding of Yahweh. There were a variety of understandings about the messiah and a number of the passages that are taken as being messianic were really about Israel. In some, (like the suffering servant is Isaiah), Jesus seems to have appropriated them to Himself.
The predominate view, as held by the disciples pre-resurrection and for a short time afterwards was that the messiah, in this case Jesus, would lead them against their enemies and the Jews would become the dominate tribe in the area. Even though He hadn’t mounted an army they still believed it because of the miracles which gave them confidence that God would fight the battles for them. Jesus seems to have sifted the scriptures and fulfilled those which were consistent with His nature and where he could made a point of certain things. A couple of examples would be referring to Himself as the Son of Man’ and of course riding the colt into Jerusalem.
Faith writes:
Yes, no problem with that. I think we commit sin all the time, though, without knowing it, especially since Jesus redefined adultery as including lust in the heart and murder as hatred in the heart. We're violating those and all the other commandments at that level all the time. When He said He fulfilled the Law down to its tiniest punctuation marks He implied that the tiniest of sins against the Law would be held against us except for His fulfillment of it.
The only problem with that though is the last sentence. I still don’t see it as sins plural, but as sin singular. It is all about what is in our hearts that motivates us. A couple of easy examples of that are in the sheep and goats parable from Matthew 25, and of course the Good Samaritan.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 11:08 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 45 of 105 (862055)
08-30-2019 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 7:32 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:
Never said I did not have any biases. It is very dishonest of you to imply that I feel that way. I have lots of biases. The difference is I am open and honest about them. I am merely pointing out the problems with your sources. They are biased and not historians as you presented them.
I was merely pointing out that we all have biases and I wouldn't have thought to have to point out that you would feel that you didn't. I'm sure we all take it for granted that we all have biases, and obviously that includes me and those that we have talked about. Once again, This "faith and belief' forum is for our faiths and beliefs that form our biases in the first place. I'm not at all sure why this is any kind of an issue with you.
Yes my sources have biases. All historians have biases. If you disregard those historians who have biased we would no historical accounts at all. We as individuals decide what and who it is that we have faith in, and what we believe.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 7:32 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 8:50 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 47 of 105 (862060)
08-30-2019 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 8:50 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
He is a theologian who has spent considerable time studying 1st century history.
Edited by GDR, : Re worded an incredibly poorly written statement.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 8:50 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 11:36 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 10:11 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 52 of 105 (862075)
08-31-2019 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Theodoric
08-31-2019 10:11 AM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:
But you should also point out that he is not a historian as you claimed.
The following is from this wiki site
A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past, and is regarded as an authority on it.[1] Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time. If the individual is concerned with events preceding written history, the individual is a historian of prehistory. Some historians are recognized by publications or training and experience.
Wright fits that definition perfectly. He has studied extensively on Christian history in the context of of it's time and culture. He has taught on the subject all over the world.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 10:11 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2019 12:19 PM GDR has replied
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 08-31-2019 12:40 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 1:49 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 54 of 105 (862079)
08-31-2019 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tangle
08-31-2019 12:19 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Sure. I already mentioned Josephus. I read Robert Wright's book "The Evolution of God". Wright calls himself an agnostic. Another Wright, I(I seem to be big on Wrights) is Ronald Wright book "A Short History of Progress". I've read Dawkins, Hitchens and others of the atheistic POV and read numerous books on basic physics by secularists like Brian Greene.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2019 12:19 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2019 2:05 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 59 of 105 (862091)
08-31-2019 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Theodoric
08-31-2019 1:49 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:
Ok now provide us with who considers him an authority. Has he published in historical journals? Has he been employed as a historian? I do not see any position he has as a historian. They have all been theological and apologetics. Apologetics and theology are not history. They use history but in a biased way to arrive at a preordained outcome.
OK. You are going to believe what you want. Wright is an ancient historian who can read the documents in their original languages. He is primarily a theologian who studies his theology within their historical context. If you want to reject all of that it is fine with me.
The views that I expressed are my beliefs, (this is a faith and belief) forum and you reject Christianity completely, so everything I wrote is all poppycock (as somebody put it earlier) anyway. Carrying on this discussion of Wright's credentials is pointless. Yes, the vast majority of sites with articles concerning Wright is Christian because that is where he goes to teach and speak. His ministry is not aimed at non-Christians but aimed at Christians in order to advance Christian scholarship.
Incidentally here is a link to a Time magazine article.
Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop - TIME

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 1:49 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 5:26 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 61 of 105 (862094)
08-31-2019 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tangle
08-31-2019 2:05 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Tangle writes:
You get credit for reading those things but - with the exception of Josephus - they're not historical works. I was asking whether you'd read any historians that weren't also theologians writing about 1st century Christianity.
I haven't btw, but if I was as interested as you are I would have done. If they exist that is.
I looked through my library and I couldn't find one that would really fit the bill. I have read works by people like Dom Crossan and Markus Borg. They have some interesting insights and both deny the bodily resurrection. (Borg unfortunately passed away last year.) I considered their views but frankly their argument boiled down to the idea that they knew it couldn't happen, (people who are dead stay dead) and so any other explanation is preferable. One idea they put out was that just as people claim to have visions of some sort with loved ones after they have passed on. However, that makes no sense of the accounts of Jesus appearing to multiple people at the same time. Primarily for me though, none of the possibilities of what happened that they put forward made any historical sense for the early rise of Christianity.
The point is that and I have done the best I can to read about my faith from as many perspectives as I can. I have found that by looking at Jesus in His historical context, it altered much of what I had previously accepted and so many things fell into place for me.
If anyone knows of any good historical books from that era please let me know.
Incidentally, I have just pre-ordered a new book by Wright entitled The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians
The book I mentioned earlier called The Patient Ferment of the Early Church: The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire was definitely not a book of apologetics even though it was put out by a Christian publishing house. It was very interesting in that it is clear that the early church was not about evangelizing. It was actually primarily a social movement based on Jesus' command to love their neighbours. They were particularly looking to attract new adherents, and those they did attract came because they were attracted to a new way of living based on sacrificial love. They actually had to go through a fairly rigorous process prior to being baptized into the church. In spite of what you may think it was a very well researched historical work.
It is my hope and belief that today's church is inching its way back towards that view.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2019 2:05 PM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 62 of 105 (862095)
08-31-2019 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Theodoric
08-31-2019 5:26 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:
What ancient languages can he read?
The following is from thr preface of a book outlining Wright's views but not by Wright.
quote:
Tom has spent most of his time in England. He school he focused on the "classics" then spent 3 years at Exeter College in Oxford studying classic, (Greek and Roman) literature leading to a BA. As you can tell he likes stories and older times. In 1971 he added two years of theology to the mix and graduated with a second BA in theology. He studied another four years at Oxford in Anglican ministry and finished with an MA. He then stayed at Downing College in Cambridge as Fellow and Chaplain from 1978 to 1981 and completed his doctorate.
He has taught Greek at the university level and also has Latin. I read somewhere that he also gained fluency in Aramaic as well as some of the European languages but I can't remember the source of that information.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 5:26 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2019 7:30 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 63 of 105 (862096)
08-31-2019 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
08-30-2019 6:28 PM


Jesus' Earthly Limitations
I think I'll go a little further into tis
Faith writes:
Traditional Christology has no problem seeing Jesus as God in human flesh, that's what the term "incarnate" means, it's perfectly standard. He is also the Logos or the Word made flesh, but Jesus IS God, begotten by God, there is no need to get so "careful" about this.
I want to go a little further into this which is one of the main points I was trying to make in the talk, and a point I think we will disagree on. A know that there are Gospel accounts that seem to contradict my point but I do not see Jesus the human being having supernatural knowledge of either the future or of any any life prior to His earthly existence. As an aside I agree with John Polkinghorne, (who first got me thinking about this), when he claims that God does not know the future either as the future is open and not there to be known.
Yes, I believe that Jesus and others gain insight that from their beliefs, (not knowledge), through prayer and the study of the Scriptures, however the response is based on faith. I contend that this was true of Jesus. I suggest that this is clearest in Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane . As an aside, I am not saying by this that the miracles didn't happen, but I would contend that the miracles happened by God the Father responding to the prayers of Jesus.
I outlined at the end of the talk how I see us coming to understand Jesus as God or maybe more accurately as Lord.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 08-31-2019 7:20 PM GDR has replied
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 08-31-2019 7:52 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 68 of 105 (862103)
08-31-2019 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
08-31-2019 7:20 PM


Re: Jesus' Earthly Limitations
Faith writes:
I reject the idea that Jesus was in any way ignorant of His divinity while on Earth.
I'd just like to focus on this. I don't see Jesus' self understanding as seeing Himself as God. He did however in my view combine two threads out of the Hebrew Scriptures and apply them to Himself.
The first was the arrival of the messiah and the second was the return of Yahweh to the Jews. He certainly saw Himself as the messiah for a multitude of reasons but He also IMHO saw Himself as somehow embodying the return of Yahweh. He clearly demonstrated the He saw Himself as a Temple replacement by forgiving sins. He even talked about the Jews missing the time of Yahweh's visitation. He also talked in seeing Him they were also seeing the Father, and by this, it seems clear to me that He understood that He was embodying the true nature of the Father.
Once again though I don't think that this came to Him supernaturally but simply through prayer and His understanding of Scriptures, which He seemed to have understood in a way that none of His countrymen, (at least that we know of), did at the time.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 08-31-2019 7:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 08-31-2019 8:24 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 76 of 105 (862115)
09-01-2019 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
08-31-2019 8:24 PM


Re: Jesus' Earthly Limitations
Just to touch on a couple of things. The quotes you used from the OT were about the return of Yahweh. They were not messianic. Here is a wiki article that talks about Jewish belief about a messiah.
Messiah - Wikipedia
The messiah was only believed to be a human who would lead the presumably in battle but would be the anointed one of God to do that. Jesus wove together the two Jewish ideas, a human messiah to lead them and the return of Yahweh into Himself. Of course He wasn't the messiah that the Jews expected or wanted, and they missed completely the time of Yahweh's visitation.
Faith writes:
Of course as God He actually authored the scriptures, so He would simply have known them, they didn't even need to "come to Him" as they might to us.
Well, as you know I disagree with that. I don't believe at all that he authored them but I would have confidence that He had them memorized, but in the same way that other Jewish teachers of His day would have them memorized.
Faith writes:
"Who can forgive sins but God" is what that passage says, it doesn't impute the forgiveness of sins to the Temple.
For the Jews to be forgiven sins they brought sacrifices to the Temple and asked God for forgiveness. Jesus forgave sins on the spot and said that He desired mercy and not sacrifice.
Faith writes:
And of course referring to Himself as the visitation of God He is claiming to BE God, not just represent Him, also in the case of claiming to show the Father through His own Person -- can't accept your reducing that to a matter of showing God simply through His character.
We'll just disagree on that.
Faith writes:
Then there was where He says how He had wanted to comfort Jerusalem but "you wouldn't come to Me" He's clearly saying He's God, not a representation of God.
Not at all. Jesus wanted to lead the Jews in a direction that was peaceful instead of the revolutionary road they were headed down. It would have avoided the slaughter of many thousand Jews as well as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 08-31-2019 8:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 09-01-2019 6:23 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 79 of 105 (862144)
09-01-2019 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
09-01-2019 6:23 AM


Re: Jesus' Earthly Limitations
Faith writes:
But the return of God IS the coming of the Messiah, the Messiah IS God.
No. The messiah was to be the one human anointed by God to lead the Jews. The return of Yahweh was a different matter but Jesus combined the two strands of Jewish belief.
Faith writes:
The Jews were wrong about the Messiah, as Jesus makes amply clear. He criticizes the Pharisees endlessly, because they were wrong in their understanding of the scriptures in all the ways He says. As Christians we are to understand the Old Testament through the New Testament, we are not to follow the Jewish understanding. The appearance of the Messiah in Jesus was anticipated rightly only by very few of the Jews who read the scriptures rightly: Anna and Simeon in the temple were two of those. The vast majority got it wrong and had to learn the truth from Jesus Himself. They had the Book of Daniel to tell them when it would be so most got the timing rightish, which is why there were so many would-be Messiahs popping up around that period of time, but the character of the Messiah, no. That He was to be God Himself in human flesh, that's all in the OT but they missed it.
I don't see anything in Luke's account of Simeon and Anna that indicate that they thought the messiah was a deity. They certainly believed Him to be the messiah and that He would bring a renewal to the Israelites, but as the human messiah annointed by God. Even the term Son of God was essentially a messianic term and it was quite a bit later that the early Christians denoted and understood that the term meant more than simply being anointed by God but to actually claim Jesus as part of the godhead.
Faith writes:
Jesus didn't do any weaving of these things, He simply fulfills the prophecies as written, to be the Suffering Servant of Isaiah in His first advent, as He explained in the synagogue when He read from the first part of Isaiah 61, stopping right before the line about God's vengeance, and then on His second coming to be the conquering hero of that line He left out, but not against Rome, against all of God's enemies.
Yes, but that was Jesus' understanding and not the understanding held by the Jews in general. I agree that it wasn't just about Rome but the broader problem of evil itself.
Faith writes:
Yes we disagree about that. Do you know that the Greek for "inspired" where the scriptures are described as inspired literally means "God-breathed?"
Yes, just as I believe that Lewis, Wright and numerous others have been inspired to write what they do. That doesn't impute inerrancy to what they write.
Faith writes:
When Jesus says this as directly as He did, how He Himself wanted to do this, He is clearly identifying Himself as God who wanted to gather Jerusalem to Himself to comfort them and they kept refusing Him.
But you didn’t finish the quote. You need the verses following.
quote:
37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’
It is about the one who comes in the name of the Lord, which is quite different from how you understood it when you left off the final verses of the passage. He is speaking on behalf of the Father. He is likely also referring back to Psalm 118 vs 26 where it is clearly about humans who come in the name of the Lord.
Faith writes:
Then there was where He says how He had wanted to comfort Jerusalem but "you wouldn't come to Me" He's clearly saying He's God, not a representation of God.
(I’ll try to do a better job of answering this. )
Not at all. Why couldn’t He comfort Jerusalem as God’s representative as you put it. He they had believed He was God’s anointed one it would seem reasonable that He could have comforted Jerusalem.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 09-01-2019 6:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 09-02-2019 2:37 AM GDR has replied
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 09-02-2019 2:56 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 82 of 105 (862156)
09-02-2019 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
09-02-2019 2:37 AM


Re: Jesus' Earthly Limitations
Faith writes:
What sort of "return of Yahweh" could there be apart from the Messiah? What are you anticipating? When is it to happen, or has it happened?
The Jews weren't really sure of how it would look with the return of Yahweh. They looked back to the Exodus out of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, and anticipated something like that. At the same time they also hoped for a Jewish messiah. Here is material from a wiki site.
quote:
In Abrahamic religions, a messiah or messias (Hebrew: ’, romanized: ma; Greek: , romanized: messas, Arabic: , romanized: mas) is a saviour or liberator of a group of people. The concepts of moshiach, messianism, and of a Messianic Age originated in Judaism,[1][2] and in the Hebrew Bible; a moshiach (messiah) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil. Messiahs were not exclusively Jewish: the Book of Isaiah refers to Cyrus the Great, king of the Achaemenid Empire, as a messiah[3] for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.
Ha mashiach (’, 'the Messiah', 'the anointed one'),[4][a] often referred to as melekh mashiach ( ’ 'King Messiah'),[6] is to be a human leader, physically descended from the paternal Davidic line through King David and King Solomon. He is thought to accomplish predetermined things in only one future arrival, including the unification of the tribes of Israel,[7] the gathering of all Jews to Eretz Israel, the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, the ushering in of a Messianic Age[8] of global universal peace, and the annunciation of the world to come.
The messiah, as I've said, was to be the one anointed by God to lead them, but very human. They were two different strands of Jewish thought.
Jesus through prayer and through His Scriptural knowledge combined the two strands together into His own life. He would also have experienced God the Father working through Him in ways that were unique to Him.
So yes, Jesus did embody Yahweh's return but as a very human messiah. The "Word" became flesh, with the "Word" representing God's nature and His message for mankind.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 09-02-2019 2:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-02-2019 3:29 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 83 of 105 (862157)
09-02-2019 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
09-02-2019 2:37 AM


Re: Jesus' Earthly Limitations
I wonder if you have considered this Faith. It seems to me that the views that you have expressed of Jesus’ divine knowledge actually diminishes what He was as a man, and what He did as a man. How many Christians, (and non-Christians for that matter), have over the centuries sacrificed their lives out of love for others. These people gave up their lives simply on the faith that this was the human, or the right thing to do.
If Jesus had the kind of supernatural knowledge that I think you believe He had, then He would have knowledge of His resurrection, which diminishes His sacrifice on the cross. However if,( as I believe and also contend is consistent with the NT accounts), with faith and belief, not knowledge, that His Father was somehow going to redeem His torturous humiliating death, then it takes on a whole new and far more relevant meaning.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 09-02-2019 2:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 09-02-2019 4:11 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024