Jesus Among Secular Gods

Well at least we are beginning to see common ground, but we do disagree in many aspects of belief. Jesus has eternally existed, in my belief, and was fully human while on earth. He could have called on angels at any time to help him, but evidently wanted to accept full responsibility for showing humans what could be done.Do you agree that GOD is good, or do you continue to assert the belief that GOD is complete? Is the God of Judaism any different than the God of Christianity? If so, please elaborate.

I'm not sure that has any meaning Phat. My belief is that Good and Bad are strictly constructs created by living things; in our case other humans.Also, I'm not sure how a God could be incomplete. Again that just seems like really basic stuff Phat.Judaism denies that God can have an offspring, son, ghost or be more than a single individual. Trinitarian Christianity claims God has a son and there is some third party called Spirit.Major differences.In addition there is no such thing as "The God of Judaism" or "The God of Christianity". Both religions have a whole range of beliefs about what God is or what God is like.

On one level I agree with you but I don't think it is that simple. Yes, the Trinity was a way that the relatively early Christians came up with in an effort to understand how the godhead fit together. In many ways I just don't see it being that difficult. It all starts with the "Father' who is the creator of life. The Spirit is the God's voice in all of us that we can either choose to listen to or ignore. Jesus is the Son of Man,who, however it was done, gave His human life wholly over to God's spirit and then was made Lord and given dominion over the Kingdom as in Daniel 7. I just don't see it as there being different gods in the Bible. It is all the same god but with different human understandings and expectations of God. If we use God as embodied by Jesus as the lens we can then read through the 66 different books that make up the Bible and understand where the writers got it wrong and where they got it more or less right. The whole Biblical narrative provides the story of a progressive understanding of the nature of God climaxing in Jesus.

. I agree with GDR on this assessment. And I'm talking GOD here, in case you were wondering, jar. Trying to relate to GOD would be like trying to commune with a cloud or become one with a forest. One can get closer through denying the flesh, fasting, meditation, and focus ion noble thoughts and deeds. Obeying the charge to feed, clothe, and comfort the least of these is progressive understanding through doing. (and no, ringo...I've not thrown the book away.)

That's all just word salad and offers absolutely no reason to think it has any content whatsoever.qs=GDRIf we use God as embodied by Jesus as the lens we can then read through the 66 different books that make up the Bible and understand where the writers got it wrong and where they got it more or less right. [/qs]That just means we can pick those things we agree with and create both Jesus and God in our own image.We can choose things to justify or beliefs and the Bible is as good a place to find such things as the Qu'ran or Aesop's Fables.But that still leaves Jesus as yet another human creation that reflects the God we create.But in the end, I believe we will be judged based on our behavior.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed broken quoteEdited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

From your POV that makes sense as, from what you have said before, you don't believe that God resurrected Jesus. The resurrection is absolute central to the establishment of the Christian church. Without it is a blend of deism and secular humanism and following Jesus is really no different than following Gandhi.Yes you believe in life after death and that there is ultimately judgement but that is hardly the exclusive domain of Christianity. If however God did resurrect Jesus , then what I said makes complete sense. Will my behaviour be judged on the same basis as someone who grew up being physically and mentally abused?

Jar and Thug have commented on this part of your post and I'm going to add my bit. We are SUPPOSED to read the whole Bible through the "lens" of Christ, or the New Testament as a whole. But what conservative Reformed Christians get when we do this is the Christian understandinjg of the Old Testament, there is NO PLACE "where they got it wrong," because it was all inspired (God-breathed) through Jesus anyway. We are to interpret everything in the OT according to the revelationj of the New and when we do we do not contradict any of it, we understand its original meaning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But I do believe that God not just resurrected Jesus (that is a fairly common theme in many religions) but the he Ascended in to Heaven and will come again to judge the living and the dead.That still doesn't tell us anything about GOD. No one knows.

Hi Faith
The problem though is that in actuality you don't read the Bible through the lens of Jesus. You understand the Bible as being inerrant, so that if the Bible says that God commanded His followers to publicly stone people to death or to commit genocide then you believe that to be historical. That though is completely incompatible with Jesus' command to love your enemy, turn the other cheek etc, The enemy at that time was considered to be the Romans, and that specifically at the time was who Jesus would be referring to. Your understanding of inerrancy is also completely incompatible with Jesus telling them to release the woman caught in adultery.It is a choice. As a Christian you can believe that the "Word" of God is a library of books or it is Jesus. It can't be both. For that matter the Bible says that in Jesus the "Word" was made flesh. Neither the Bible nor Jesus says that the "Word" was embodied by a book.

I'm curious as to what you mean by resurrection. Are you talking about a "Jesus Seminar" understanding, where it is a metaphor or possibly some kind of vision, or was the resurrected Jesus present physically in that He BBQ'd fish and could be touched? Of course it would. If God resurrected Jesus then that is an affirmation of Jesus' life and message, so when we see what Jesus says about God it has considerable credibility OK. We don't know but we do have beliefs. If we give any credence to what the Gospels claim that Jesus said, then we can expect judgement to be fair. IMHO the person who does the best job of sorting that out is Lewis. Essentially as I read him, it is that it isn't about what we do or don't do but about where our hearts lie. The things we do or don't do are symptoms of that but also driven by personal circumstances.

My belief is a physical resurrection. But again it is only a personal belief and I don't think it's a significant or relevant point when it comes to living. But again, there are many examples of someone being resurrected in the Bible so I don't see how that says anything about God.

Interesting. I had believed that you had said some time ago that you didn't believe in a physical resurrection. I don't agree with that. The other Biblical accounts such as Lazarus are about a resuscitation back to a physicality that is still subject to entropy and eventual death. The point of Jesus' resurrection was a transformation into a body that is not subject to entropy or death and is able to move between God's dimension and our own.Paul sees Jesus as being the first born of a re-created world which will ultimately be about the renewal of all things. (Matt 19:28)Again, if Jesus has been resurrected by God and given dominion over the nations then it is to Jesus that we look to understand the nature of God. Again it is when we look at Jesus in that light we can know that when the Bible says that God ordered genocide and public stoning we can know that those involved personally got it wrong, even though the writers may have faithfully reported what was said.

You claim to be a Creedal Cradle Christian. What does the Nicene Creed say about the relationship between GOD and His Son (human character)?What I'm trying to get you to do is to step off your critical thinking unbiased observation point and make a choice about whether belief in and trust in Jesus (Gods Character) is relevant for today. I happen to believe that it is. You mention a different emphasis: Personal Responsibility and Lessons from Jesus' life. I emphasize Communion eternally and the power of His Resurrection.

Okay, but why? What does that even mean? Why can't anyone explain how some communion is even possible or how to know who or what you are communioning with? Nothing actually. More word salad Phat. What does "belief in and trust in Jesus (Gods Character)" even mean? How would it once someone can explain what it is be relevant for today?

Do you believe that He has absolute power?Jesus once asked Peter "who do men say that I am?"
He then went on to ask Peter directly. And the question could be leveled at jar. Who do *you* say that I am?You always duck and dodge this one, preferring to teach the Bible from a neutral and objectively independent standpoint.