Denial of the deity of Jesus

[freelight]

'God' expressing himself thru Jesus............

'God' expressing himself thru Jesus............

Yes friend, I see the son mentioned in Heb 1 as the spiritual son. If he is the express image he must be a copy of the Father in all ways. That makes him a spirit and not A pre existent Jesus. Jesus was pure human, he needed to be human to die ad a human, christ came to bring light and understanding to mankind. God as made known through Jesus. Christ spoke through Jesus. It is the Christ in Jesus that is devine. The spirit Christ was the son sent to us and put into Jesus the body prepared for him in Heb 10:5.

Sounds like a reasonable alternative to a Trinitarian view.

Nothing is taken from or added to Jesus except one's own 'view', 'belief' or 'assumption' of his sharing in humanity or divinity at any point in time. 'God' is still carrying out his purpose and plan to reveal himself thru 'Jesus', no matter how you 'translate' the 'details'.

I'd like to keep his 'integrity' as a person intact, with all the wonderful dimensions of humanity and divinity 'involved',...and that's what makes 'Jesus' such an awesome individual (even from a purely mythicist or allegorical perspective). - its still a matter of 'interpretation'.

 

[RBBI]

Indeed a kindred Spirit, RBBI! Peter said we are "born again... by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1Peter 1:23 KJV). Through studying His Word we are most definitely standing on holy ground. Here's a little agate that I happened to stumble across a few years back... Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV. With the rather ignorant thought a fold was foal, and therefore "seventy and sevenfold" meant generations, as a mare births a foal (my equine skills are more than lacking, LOL!)... I went to Luke 3:38 and began counting with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth, wondering what might be going on in "seventy and sevenfold" generations to corroborate this wild theory that "fold" was referring to numbers of generations. Just rooting around like a blind wild hawg... I had to count three times. Just blew me away!

I both admire and share your enthusiasm, RBBI!

kayaker

I totally understand. There is so much JOY in finding the things that are hidden in plain sight. It is all put there for us to find, like prospectors digging gold and precious jewels out of the deepest veins in the earth.

Children finding "Easter/Ishtar eggs" is a poor substitute for His children finding gold, isn't' it??? At least the Jewish children are shown to find the middle piece of the afikomen hidden in a napkin, a clear reference. What have fertility gods and bunnies eggs to do with anything? But I digress.....:chuckle:

 

[freelight]

anointed ones..............

anointed ones..............

Anyone who denies the deity of Jesus is not a Christian. That's why the word "Christ" is the bottom-line reason.

As touched on earlier, some may beg to differ, since I gather there are 'christians' who call themselves such by mere adoption of tradition, or more liberal ones who idenfity as such as holding to the personality, archetype and teachings expressed or taught by 'Christ', hence the affiliation (and this beyond any strict dogmatic doctrinal creed assumption in the 'orthodox' vein).

'Messiahs' were many in Israel's history as kings and priests were 'anointed', these being mere 'men'. The 'anointing' does not necessarily indicate any inherent or bestowed 'divinity', but I'm sure one could argue over that 'figuratively'

 

[keypurr]

Anyone who denies the deity of Jesus is not a Christian. That's why the word "Christ" is the bottom-line reason.

Who are you or any one else the judge of that?
Can you read a person's mind?

Any deity he had was given to him. There is only one God and Jesus has a God.

 

[keypurr]

Yeshua was born of corruptible seed; He came forth out of the womb of a corruptible woman. The Son that is the Word, however, came forth out of incorruptible seed of the Father, and was birthed out of the womb of the morning. It is THIS WORD, that was MADE FLESH, ie. corruptible seed, that the invisible might have visibility.

This is why the Word says, this is He that came both by the WATER AND THE BLOOD, and not the water only. The water is corruptible, as in the bag of waters from the natural mother, but the blood is the life of the Word that is SPIRIT, the life is in the blood.

This is also why they made a point of saying that out of His wound came both water and blood, because He both poured out his (Yeshua's) soulish life which is as water, AND the life of the Spirit/blood was poured out as well, and it was THIS BLOOD that was taken to the Father, because carnal flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

The wound is in the area symbolized by the inner court of the priesthood, and the offerings there were both water libations and blood. He provided both, BECAUSE HE WAS BOTH, corruptible man and Spirit man. This is why there were two veils; one represents the corruptible man, the other the Spirit Seed man. The second veil had cherubims WOVEN into it by design.

The same thing we become as we are born FROM ABOVE, and thereby made joint heirs, and adopted sons. We have both a corruptible seed and an incorruptible seed, as did the pattern son. And like Him we have to offer up both water and blood, as the nations of priests that HaShem made us. This is why the Seed Son IS the firstfruits offering and no other offering is acceptable.

All of this is plain to see IF YOU STUDY THE PATTERN GIVEN TO US, but since the branch boasted itself and went it's own way, the traditions of the fathers who had not a CLUE what the pattern was, taught it the way they imagined it, instead of the way it IS.

And the lies have been so ingrained and accepted blindly for so many generations now, it takes an earthquake to shake all things in HEAVEN and earth, to move of the hand of HaShem to rip the veil from the top (the way we think) to the bottom (the way we walk), before we can see Him as He is. Pray for that move of HaShem. Peace

Excellent post friend, these words say what I have been trying to say for over three years.

 

[RBBI]

There is a shortage of laborers for the harvest..... Peace

 

[aikido7]

Who are you or any one else the judge of that?
Can you read a person's mind?

I am either blessed or cursed with possessing an evaluating mind. We are called "Christians" because of Christ and our surviving creeds give all of us the information that Jesus was God.

I cannot yet understand why some believe seeing Jesus as God has nothing to do with normative Christianity.

 

[aikido7]

Recognizing the divine in Jesus was not the theology of many early Christian groups. They saw him as a prophet and, because he never admitted his divinity in the synoptics, chose to believe he was a man.

 

[RBBI]

Technically, we are called "Christians" because the spirit of division was already at work, beginning in Antioch......just sayin.....

 

[aikido7]

Technically, we are called "Christians" because the spirit of division was already at work, beginning in Antioch......just sayin.....

I believe the term ultimately comes from the fact that this group of followers were inspired by Christ.

 

[meshak]

I believe the term ultimately comes from the fact that this group of followers were inspired by Christ.

Yes, Christians are called so because of "Christ".

Jesus makes it clear that we know them by their fruit. He does not say we are what we claim or our doctrines.

 

[RBBI]

Yes, Christians are called so because of "Christ".

Jesus makes it clear that we know them by their fruit. He does not say we are what we claim or our doctrines.

I'm sorry, but there are no Christians in the pattern. Only Jews/olive tree, and grafted in wild ones. This division has separated the body from the beginning. There's a reason why they were first called Christians at Antioch, and why it was mentioned that way. Peace

 

[genuineoriginal]

I cannot yet understand why some believe seeing Jesus as God has nothing to do with normative Christianity.

There are many Christians that have reasons for not accepting everything taught in the church as Gospel truth.

Those Christians will often take time to study the Bible to see which doctrines are Biblical and which ones are not.

 

[RBBI]

AMEN

 

[aikido7]

There are many Christians that have reasons for not accepting everything taught in the church as Gospel truth.

Those Christians will often take time to study the Bible to see which doctrines are Biblical and which ones are not.

Aren't the metaphors "biblical" as well?

Metaphoric and mythic language is always present in the sacred scriptures of every faith. To literalize it doesn't communicate its richness and diversity.

Jesus as the Lamb of God does not mean that his mother Mary had a little lamb.

 

[aikido7]

...Christians will often take time to study the Bible to see which doctrines are Biblical and which ones are not.

And that always must be an individual's thinking and feeling.
The wide discrepancies on TOL over "which doctrines are Biblical"
is a never-ending discussion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There are many Christians that have reasons for not accepting everything taught in the church as Gospel truth.

Those Christians will often take time to study the Bible to see which doctrines are Biblical and which ones are not.

Aren't the metaphors "biblical" as well?

Metaphoric and mythic language is always present in the sacred scriptures of every faith. To literalize it doesn't communicate its richness and diversity.

You did notice that my statement lacked any mention of a literal interpretation, right?

However, there are several well established methods of studying the Bible (hermeneutics).

I primarily use the Historical-grammatical method.

_____
The original meaning of texts

The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture."

Many practice the historical-grammatical method using the inductive method, a general three-fold approach to the text: 1) observation, 2) interpretation, and 3) application. Each step builds upon the other, and so they follow in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context. There is also a heavy emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner's life. Theologian Robert Traina, in his 1952 Methodical Bible Study, wrote that "the applicatory step is that for which all else exists. It represents the final purpose of Bible study."

Technically speaking, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is distinct from the determination of the passage's significance in light of that interpretation. Taken together, interpretation of the passage along with determining the meaning defines the term (Biblical) hermeneutics.
_____​

And that always must be an individual's thinking and feeling.
The wide discrepancies on TOL over "which doctrines are Biblical"
is a never-ending discussion.

Yes, interpretation of the Bible must always be from an individual's thinking and feeling, but each person must also test their beliefs against the beliefs of other Christians to grow in their understanding.
As it is written, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

 

[aikido7]

You did notice that my statement lacked any mention of a literal interpretation, right?

However, there are several well established methods of studying the Bible (hermeneutics).

I primarily use the Historical-grammatical method.

_____
The original meaning of texts

The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture."

Many practice the historical-grammatical method using the inductive method, a general three-fold approach to the text: 1) observation, 2) interpretation, and 3) application. Each step builds upon the other, and so they follow in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context. There is also a heavy emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner's life. Theologian Robert Traina, in his 1952 Methodical Bible Study, wrote that "the applicatory step is that for which all else exists. It represents the final purpose of Bible study."

Technically speaking, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is distinct from the determination of the passage's significance in light of that interpretation. Taken together, interpretation of the passage along with determining the meaning defines the term (Biblical) hermeneutics.
_____​

Yes, interpretation of the Bible must always be from an individual's thinking and feeling, but each person must also test their beliefs against the beliefs of other Christians to grow in their understanding.
As it is written, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

I see no reason to disagree with you. Theological passages are important, but finding out the original intended meaning is key for me.

 

[RBBI]

Always good to go to the source.....


The Meaning of PaRDeS: The Four Levels of Scriptural Interpretation


One of the most important hermeneutical paradigms introduced by the early and medieval rabbis is a belief that the Scriptures contain more than one layer of exegetical meaning. This intertextual approach came to be known during the medieval era by the acronym פַּרְדֵּס”PaRDeS,” standing for “Peshat,” “Remaz,” “Derash,” and “Sod.” Briefly defined, peshat is based on the literal and factual meaning of a verse[1] and roughly corresponds to the medieval concept of sensus literalis as developed by the medieval Christian scholars Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Lyra: “that which the author intends.”[2] It is also helpful to remember that the early rabbinic approach of peshat serves to define the practical character of a community.[3] Remez (allusions) refers to the subtle types of word games and puns that are embedded in the text (cf. Gen. 1:31; 2:23; 6:8). Sometimes this may take the form of Gematria (numerology) Temurah (anagrams) and Notarikon (acrostics).

The third method of exegesis, derash, provides more of a philosophical, theological, and moralistic examination of the biblical pericope. As a general rule, the rabbis resorted to derash only when the text posed a problem that could not be adequately explained through the method of peshat. Derash as its root word connotes, implies a search for truth and authenticity, while Sod concerns itself with the mystical nuances and mega-themes that see the passage in broader cosmic terms. This is the method of interpretation found throughout the Kabbalah and in the Chassidic writings, however, whose origin has strong antecedents in the writings of Philo. There is a charming passage from the Zohar which illustrates this point:

Rabbi Shimon said: Woe to the person who says that Torah presents mere stories and ordinary words! . . . Ah, but all the words of Torah are sublime words, sublime secrets! . . . This story of Torah is the garment of Torah and whosoever thinks that the garment is the real Torah and not something else—may his spirit deflate! He will have no portion in the world that is coming. . . . That is why David says: “Open my eyes so I can see wonders out of Your Torah!” (Psalms 119:18) what [sic] is under the garment of Torah! Come and see: There is a garment visible to all. When those fools see someone in a good-looking garment they look no further. But the essence of the garment is the body; the essence of the body is the soul! So, it is with Torah. She has a body: the commandments of Torah called “the embodiment of Torah.” This body is clothed in garments: the stories of this world. Fools of the world look only at the garment, the story of Torah; they know nothing more; they do not look at what is under the garment.

. . . Those who know more do not look at what is under the garment but rather at the body that is under that garment. The wise ones, servants of the King on high, those who stood at Mt. Sinai look only at the soul, root of all, real Torah! In the time to come they are destined to look at the soul of Torah! Come and see: So it is above. There is a garment and body and soul and the soul of the soul. The heavens and their host are the garment. The Communion of Israel is the body who receives the soul, the Beauty of Israel. So is She the body of the soul. The soul we mentioned is the Beauty of Israel who is real Torah. The soul of the soul is the Holy Ancient One. All is connected, this one to that one. Woe to the wicked who say that Torah is merely a story! They look at this garment and no further. Happy are the righteous that look at Torah properly! As wine must sit in a jar so Torah must sit in this garment. So look only at what is under the garment! So all those words and all those stories they are garments!”

 

[genuineoriginal]

What is interesting is how the Pharisees you mention were still unable to find the true meaning of the Torah passages that they read using “Peshat,” “Remaz,” “Derash,” and “Sod.”

Jesus had to tell them what the passages really meant.