keypurr
Well-known member
That sounds like a floor chocolate polish.
Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
That sounds like a floor chocolate polish.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
It's a matter of apostolic perspective.A matter of 'perspective' and 'Christology'
John used the word "Logos" in the Hellenistic sense denoting the Supreme Being. John said that He was 'WITH' God and not 'in' God in the way you mean.
If my son is standing by me, my son is WITH me. It does not mean my son is me.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
You're not listening. Jesus was NOT always Son. He became Son. But He was ALWAYS the Logos who was with God and was God.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Not polytheism, but true monotheism.......
Not polytheism, but true monotheism.......
This is comical.
God is forever 'One', there being One Supreme Being.
However....'God' can use the 'agency' of His Son or any number of divine personalities for that matter...in the work of creation. There is still that One Supreme Being behind all, as 'God', the original Spirit and creative Intelligence supporting all.
It just so happens that 'God' has distributed himself as a generating Presence thru-out creation, and can use any number of 'agencies' (all originating from Him) in the creative process. All originates and has its ultimate end in 'God', since there is only 'God' existing as original and ultimate reality. - all 'else' is only temporal or relative.... arising in the movement of creation (as this world, and all worlds), a play of forms and appearances.
A true monotheism can still be held in this view, in fact a Unitarian view is considered even more truly 'monotheistic' since it does not 'assume' a triad of 3 divine personalities as equally 'God', but maintains 'God' as a Singular incorporeal indivisible Entity. This 'God' can have a 'Son' and many 'sons' for that matter, since its natural for a Universal Father to beget many offspring. Any 'agency' or 'agent' God uses, derives from his own Being, as no other Being exists. In this view, the divine 'Agent' is both one with God and distinct from God', but such is a matter of point of view. 'God' is still always and eternally, the only absolute reality and supporting origin of all that exists.
pj
Not polytheism, but true monotheism.......
This is comical.
God is forever 'One', there being One Supreme Being.
However....'God' can use the 'agency' of His Son or any number of divine personalities for that matter...in the work of creation. There is still that One Supreme Being behind all, as 'God', the original Spirit and creative Intelligence supporting all.
It just so happens that 'God' has distributed himself as a generating Presence thru-out creation, and can use any number of 'agencies' (all originating from Him) in the creative process. All originates and has its ultimate end in 'God', since there is only 'God' existing as original and ultimate reality. - all 'else' is only temporal or relative.... arising in the movement of creation (as this world, and all worlds), a play of forms and appearances.
A true monotheism can still be held in this view, in fact a Unitarian view is considered even more truly 'monotheistic' since it does not 'assume' a triad of 3 divine personalities as equally 'God', but maintains 'God' as a Singular incorporeal indivisible Entity. This 'God' can have a 'Son' and many 'sons' for that matter, since its natural for a Universal Father to beget many offspring. Any 'agency' or 'agent' God uses, derives from his own Being, as no other Being exists. In this view, the divine 'Agent' is both one with God and distinct from God', but such is a matter of point of view. 'God' is still always and eternally, the only absolute reality and supporting origin of all that exists.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
the logos.....
the logos.....
Still a matter of opinion.
Thats what I was referring to, the true greek meaning of 'logos', which is an impersonal principle, force, essence, intellectual concept... and 'used' by the writer of John's in a personal sense to refer to Jesus. Philosophically, the 'logos' always existed in God and is manifested in creation as the 'ordering principle', the divine reason or wisdom behind creation, only later 'personalized'.
The 'logos' does not necessarily denote the Supreme Being, but is distinct, although of course originating from 'God'. All originally comes from within 'God' since no other exists for anything to come 'from'.
The assumption that Jesus is 'God' is still fraught with many complex theological assumptions, and can be accepted or rejected within any given philosophical context. I could equally claim that all sentient souls are 'God', being individual expressions of 'God', the 'light' or pure intelligence at the heart of all beings, and in the heart of all beings.
pj
the logos.....
Still a matter of opinion.
Thats what I was referring to, the true greek meaning of 'logos', which is an impersonal principle, force, essence, intellectual concept... and 'used' by the writer of John's in a personal sense to refer to Jesus. Philosophically, the 'logos' always existed in God and is manifested in creation as the 'ordering principle', the divine reason or wisdom behind creation, only later 'personalized'.
The 'logos' does not necessarily denote the Supreme Being, but is distinct, although of course originating from 'God'. All originally comes from within 'God' since no other exists for anything to come 'from'.
The assumption that Jesus is 'God' is still fraught with many complex theological assumptions, and can be accepted or rejected within any given philosophical context. I could equally claim that all sentient souls are 'God', being individual expressions of 'God', the 'light' or pure intelligence at the heart of all beings, and in the heart of all beings.
pj
Lon
Well-known member
▲How in the wide world of English structure do you take this▲
▼and get this?▼
:doh:
keypurr
Well-known member
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Source and relationships.......
Source and relationships.......
Hypothetically if the 'Father' is the First Source and Center of all that is ...in the total context of relationships (expanding from Source and relating in the cosmos)...then that 'Deity-center' is the primal Ancestor of all.
Everything actual and potential already exists in 'God' the only Source...and is only relational to, distinct or seemingly 'seperate' from God by relativity, contrast, comparison. - therefore a divine Son or a rational principle(logos) which is supposed to have been generated out of 'God' and that creative agency thru which God creates the world(s) is a principle or personality (if assumed) that appears as a distinct entity besides 'God', but in reality...there is only 'God' that is the inspiring and motivating power behind all.
'God' is the only Life, Soul, Spirit and Activity behind all that is 'be-ing' and 'be-coming' in the play of creation. There is no 'other'.
There may be 'players' in the drama, but 'God' conducts the orchestra.
pj
Source and relationships.......
Hypothetically if the 'Father' is the First Source and Center of all that is ...in the total context of relationships (expanding from Source and relating in the cosmos)...then that 'Deity-center' is the primal Ancestor of all.
Everything actual and potential already exists in 'God' the only Source...and is only relational to, distinct or seemingly 'seperate' from God by relativity, contrast, comparison. - therefore a divine Son or a rational principle(logos) which is supposed to have been generated out of 'God' and that creative agency thru which God creates the world(s) is a principle or personality (if assumed) that appears as a distinct entity besides 'God', but in reality...there is only 'God' that is the inspiring and motivating power behind all.
'God' is the only Life, Soul, Spirit and Activity behind all that is 'be-ing' and 'be-coming' in the play of creation. There is no 'other'.
There may be 'players' in the drama, but 'God' conducts the orchestra.
pj
keypurr
Well-known member
I think we agree friend. The father is the source of everything, son included, but he used his son to do his creating.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: "...and was..."
:doh: where is my :blind: icon? Knight, I wanna blind icon.
"...and was God..."
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
God is One Alone......
God is One Alone......
The dualism in John 1:1 is contradictory on the face of it, for something to be both "with" God and "as" God. Its a more proper translation in my view to say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with-in (towards) God and the word was divine". A personality or principle that is 'with' God',...cannot be God necessarily by identity, but is an entity seperate in a relational sense with God. The key here is the word "with", indicating 'twoness', relationship of two subjects distinct in their identity.
The gospel of John's main message is declaring Jesus to the be the 'Son' of God, and by believing that the Father sent him...you may have eternal life. Without a preconceived idea or belief of Jesus being God (imposed along with a Trinity)...there is no reason to infer that Jesus is God Almighty at all, since Jesus in John's gospel many times indicates his subordination and distinct identity in relation to God the Father.
Jesus doesn't need to be God except in someone's theology. Apart from that theology, there appears to be no relatable reason for this whole endeavor to deify the man Jesus.
Only God is God....although 'God' may manifest, express and reveal himself in any number of forms or personalities, since these all have their source in God anyways.
pj
God is One Alone......
The dualism in John 1:1 is contradictory on the face of it, for something to be both "with" God and "as" God. Its a more proper translation in my view to say "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with-in (towards) God and the word was divine". A personality or principle that is 'with' God',...cannot be God necessarily by identity, but is an entity seperate in a relational sense with God. The key here is the word "with", indicating 'twoness', relationship of two subjects distinct in their identity.
The gospel of John's main message is declaring Jesus to the be the 'Son' of God, and by believing that the Father sent him...you may have eternal life. Without a preconceived idea or belief of Jesus being God (imposed along with a Trinity)...there is no reason to infer that Jesus is God Almighty at all, since Jesus in John's gospel many times indicates his subordination and distinct identity in relation to God the Father.
Jesus doesn't need to be God except in someone's theology. Apart from that theology, there appears to be no relatable reason for this whole endeavor to deify the man Jesus.
Only God is God....although 'God' may manifest, express and reveal himself in any number of forms or personalities, since these all have their source in God anyways.
pj
Wile E. Coyote
New member
Actually it's not contradictory at all. The woman was "with" Adam but was also called "Adam" by God because she from Adam's side. So the Word was at God's side, John 1:18 ESV.
God called both the man and the woman "Adam." It was the man who called her "Eve."
:thumb:
Ya kinda undid all that you believe.:banana:
Although Adam and Eve bare the same name they are TWO distinct beings.
Lon
Well-known member
No it is not. It 'seems' contradictory but it isn't at all. Dolly the Sheep is two sheep from one body. She exists as two sheep. <--That 'appears' or 'seems' contradictory, but it isn't at all. Not even a little bit. Anybody familiar with what they did with that sheep has no problem with the seeming contradiction.
No, that is just like somebody trying to 'correct' John and God.
If you stop there, it isn't the whole truth but settling for half of one.
I disagree. I believe John is making it clear that Jesus is God. If you follow from the beginning to the end, we use almost the whole book to support Jesus as God starting in chapter 1 to the end of the book.
1) How do you know what Jesus needs to be?
2) It is my view that you are robbing Him of His rightful worship.
That's a human conception of the God of the universe. You usually aren't this closed off in your thinking and I find it discouraging:
"Only Dolly the sheep is Dolly the Sheep..." but there are two of them but only one. Sounds contradictory, but it isn't.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
No! They are one being but two distinct persons. Being = substance. Adam and Eve are one substance.
So God and the Word are one substance.
That'll be the day when you catch me in an inconsistency. Look it up in the dictionary. Being = substance. Adam and Eve are both called "Adam" because they are one being (substance).