Jesus is God !

[Wile E. Coyote]

Thank you friend, I knew that though. But I have never got deep into the subject of Mythslogy itself,

What! Your view that Jesus is God's "clone" has a striking resemblance to Greek mythology. Wake up Keypurr!

 

[freelight]

mythos

mythos

What! Your view that Jesus is God's "clone" has a striking resemblance to Greek mythology. Wake up Keypurr!

Hi WEC and all following,

You may find our older "Pagan origins of the Christ-myth" of interest

There are many correlaries to the 'Christ-myth' intimated in earlier pagan traditions and the mystery religions.

In-joy!


pj

 

[keypurr]

What! Your view that Jesus is God's "clone" has a striking resemblance to Greek mythology. Wake up Keypurr!

I never really studied Greek mythology.

But you might be right except mine is not a myth. Its in the book. I understand the Greeks had many gods, like you. Maybe its from your Greek Bible.
I only have one God. I feel gyped.

You got me in a rare mood tonight Wile.

 

[freelight]

pagan roots....

pagan roots....

I never really studied Greek mythology.

But you might be right except mine is not a myth. Its in the book. I understand the Greeks had many gods, like you. Maybe its from your Greek Bible.
I only have one God. I feel gyped.

You got me in a rare mood tonight Wile.

Back in the day....they had 'household gods'....many of our own preferred forms of 'God' might be equivalent




pj

 

[keypurr]

Back in the day....they had 'household gods'....many of our own preferred forms of 'God' might be equivalent




pj

I afraid some still do friend.

 

[Apple7]

Bs'd

Here is who is God, and, surprise! it is not JC:

Who is the God of Israel? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Christianity is very confused about this. A confusion also caused by bad Bible translations. In almost all translations the four lettered name of God, Y-H-W-H, which appears in the Hebrew Bible almost 7000 times, is not mentioned, but replaced by "the LORD".

All the way through the Tanak, the prophets state that the Jews were idol worshipers and that they incorrectly worshipped God.

So tell us...why do you think that you are correctly worshipping Him now....?!

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

All the way through the Tanak, the prophets state that the Jews were idol worshipers and that they incorrectly worshipped God.

So tell us...why do you think that you are correctly worshipping Him now....?!

Very good question Apple. :up:

 

[freelight]

what 'idolatry' really is.......

what 'idolatry' really is.......

All the way through the Tanak, the prophets state that the Jews were idol worshipers and that they incorrectly worshipped God.

So tell us...why do you think that you are correctly worshipping Him now....?!

From an orthodox Jewish perspective this is simply referring to the fact that they did not worship YHWH Elohim, but other 'gods'...either referring to other pagan local gods or concepts that took the place of the One True God. An 'idol' can be an objective god/goddess in the form of some 'image' or a subjective concept or ideal that takes the place of 'God'. It still stands that that One True God is an incorporeal, eternal, infinite, all-transcendent 'God-Presence'...beyond human conception really. Any deviation from this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (aslo the God of Moses) would be a kind of 'idolatry'. This in no way supports a 'Christian' concept of 'God' for that concept of God in those days before 'Christianity' came into being...wasn't even known among the Jews. - whatever came later was a 'christian' innovation, development, 'revelation' commensurate with the forming of the NT, christian theology, etc.

Continuing on my definition of 'idolatry' above,...such exists in all religious traditions or with any individual who worshipes an 'image' or 'concept'...and NOT the One True God, which is a living Spirit-Presence and Infinite Intelligence (the essence of Universal 'Being' and 'Consciousness'...that is Omnipresent).

~*~*~


From a Hindu (the Advaita Vedanta school) perspective -

'God' forever remains 'One', a Singularity of Pure Being and Primordial Awareness...that is beyond all duality, human conception and form. Such is 'Brahman'. 'Brahman' is actually that prior universal reality from which all concepts, images and forms derive from...this includes all conceptions of 'God'. So...it is most primal, before all concepts, incoporeal. It is 'unknowable' being pure 'knowing' or 'knowledge' itself as the Infinite "I" of pure subjective awareness. This is the divine Self abiding in all sentient beings...as 'Brahman-atman'.




pj

 

[Apple7]

From an orthodox Jewish perspective this is simply referring to the fact that they did not worship YHWH Elohim, but other 'gods'...either referring to other pagan local gods or concepts that took the place of the One True God. An 'idol' can be an objective god/goddess in the form of some 'image' or a subjective concept or ideal that takes the place of 'God'. It still stands that that One True God is an incorporeal, eternal, infinite, all-transcendent 'God-Presence'...beyond human conception really. Any deviation from this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (aslo the God of Moses) would be a kind of 'idolatry'. This in no way supports a 'Christian' concept of 'God' for that concept of God in those days before 'Christianity' came into being...wasn't even known among the Jews. - whatever came later was a 'christian' innovation, development, 'revelation' commensurate with the forming of the NT, christian theology, etc.

Completely and utterly untrue.

You speak as one ignorant of scripture.

God has always kept a remnant of the Hebrew race going forward, as this remnant had the recipe for proper worship of His deity.

Trouble is, the Jews kept losing the recipe!

So...my question to Jews is how exactly did the ones in God's favor worship Him?!

Why did the majority not get it right? Why did they choose other gods to worship? Where did they get the idea of more than one God in the first place?

Scriptural cognizants please reply...

 

[keypurr]

Completely and utterly untrue.

You speak as one ignorant of scripture.

God has always kept a remnant of the Hebrew race going forward, as this remnant had the recipe for proper worship of His deity.

Trouble is, the Jews kept losing the recipe!

So...my question to Jews is how exactly did the ones in God's favor worship Him?!

Why did the majority not get it right? Why did they choose other gods to worship? Where did they get the idea of more than one God in the first place?

Scriptural cognizants please reply...

You did see his words "in those days before 'Christianity' came into being" , I hope.

 

[freelight]

Review facts.......

Review facts.......

Completely and utterly untrue.

You speak as one ignorant of scripture.

God has always kept a remnant of the Hebrew race going forward, as this remnant had the recipe for proper worship of His deity.

Trouble is, the Jews kept losing the recipe!

So...my question to Jews is how exactly did the ones in God's favor worship Him?!

Why did the majority not get it right? Why did they choose other gods to worship? Where did they get the idea of more than one God in the first place?

Scriptural cognizants please reply...

I suggest being 'cognizant' of Orthodox Jewish Theology and their traditional interpretation of their scriptures before any NT(New Testament) came along. The reference of being 'scripturally cognizant' above is laughable. A basic course in 'Comparitive Religions' would be helpful here too.

I suggest you review the previous more carefully before jumping to conclusions. If you're pushing that a Trinity-concept among the Jews existed before Christianity came upon the scene....you're mistaken. I'll let you simmer on that for starters.....

My previous commentary on 'idolatry' and its 'nature' still holds. Remember, 'God' is Spirit. Early Jews had a variety of gods/goddess archetypes to worship (from the cultures they were involved with and influenced by), while their 'God' YHWH/Elohim demanded full loyalty to Him alone. The 'God' of the Jews would be that same 'deity' that gave them the promises from Abraham down to Moses and the Law, & the prophets and so on. Deviations from the religious formality, laws, cultural observances and 'ways' established by 'YHWH/Elohim', that was inspired from worshipping other 'gods' (idols, images, concepts, any-thing or any-being not revealed as their 'God' and religious customs, way of life, etc.)...would naturally constitute some form of 'idolatry'.

The pure monotheism of Judaism is to be recognized here, not a later Trinitized version of the One God revealed and believed in later within Christian theology with its 'Christology' of holding 'Jesus' to be part of an eternal Godhead.



pj

 

[freelight]

'Real God'

'Real God'

You did see his words "in those days before 'Christianity' came into being" , I hope.

There's nothing like a thorough "review" to refresh a true understanding of a former commentary, if one 'applies' themself to 'get' the points shared therein.

Also coming to the table with a truly open mind helps, for the worship of a preconceived image, idea or concept of 'God' can be deemed 'idolatry' as much as bowing down to a matterial image or object. Its really in the mind and heart....where true idolatry begins...assigning false or misplaced values to a religious image, idea or concept...when 'Real God' is prior to these human inventions and transcends all concepts altogether.





pj

 

[keypurr]

There's nothing like a thorough "review" to refresh a true understanding of a former commentary, if one 'applies' themself to 'get' the points shared therein.

Also coming to the table with a truly open mind helps, for the worship of a preconceived image, idea or concept of 'God' can be deemed 'idolatry' as much as bowing down to a matterial image or object. Its really in the mind and heart....where true idolatry begins...assigning false or misplaced values to a religious image, idea or concept...when 'Real God' is prior to these human inventions and transcends all concepts altogether.


pj

Folks are not with the spirit as much as they think my friend.
A closed mind is such a waste.

 

[Apple7]

I suggest being 'cognizant' of Orthodox Jewish Theology and their traditional interpretation of their scriptures before any NT(New Testament) came along. The reference of being 'scripturally cognizant' above is laughable. A basic course in 'Comparitive Religions' would be helpful here too.

Just as it is with Muslims and their scripture set, so it is with Jews and their scripture set....how they interpret it, is almost entirely incorrect and different than what was written.

So...studying 'comparative religion' is a complete and utter waste of time, unless, of course, you are willing to root-level study the semitic languages in which their scriptures were penned..

I suggest you review the previous more carefully before jumping to conclusions. If you're pushing that a Trinity-concept among the Jews existed before Christianity came upon the scene....you're mistaken. I'll let you simmer on that for starters.....

Moses was Trinitarian.

We can easily tell this from his writings....not that you study it, of course...

Gnaw of that one...

My previous commentary on 'idolatry' and its 'nature' still holds. Remember, 'God' is Spirit.

Which God?

Early Jews had a variety of gods/goddess archetypes to worship (from the cultures they were involved with and influenced by), while their 'God' YHWH/Elohim demanded full loyalty to Him alone. The 'God' of the Jews would be that same 'deity' that gave them the promises from Abraham down to Moses and the Law, & the prophets and so on. Deviations from the religious formality, laws, cultural observances and 'ways' established by 'YHWH/Elohim', that was inspired from worshipping other 'gods' (idols, images, concepts, any-thing or any-being not revealed as their 'God' and religious customs, way of life, etc.)...would naturally constitute some form of 'idolatry'.

That does not answer the question as to why the Jews thought it necessary to worship numerous gods.

Where did this idea come from...?

The pure monotheism of Judaism is to be recognized here, not a later Trinitized version of the One God revealed and believed in later within Christian theology with its 'Christology' of holding 'Jesus' to be part of an eternal Godhead.

All the OT prophets were Trinitarian.

Yahweh came in the flesh as Malek Yahweh numerous times in the OT.

Study up...

 

[freelight]

Mono-pan-theistic

Mono-pan-theistic

Just as it is with Muslims and their scripture set, so it is with Jews and their scripture set....how they interpret it, is almost entirely incorrect and different than what was written.

A matter of interpretation, - both Islam and Judaism maintain their fundamental monotheism. This specifically indicates a rejection of a the Christian concept of a 'Trinity'. A sense of plurality within the divine Unity is indicated in the word 'Elohim' and certain passages, but this is not traditionally taken as a 'specific' Trinity as conceived by christiains. 'God' is still always, eternally, indivisibly ONE. - one can certainly 'read' that into OT passages to prove their own concept of God.

So...studying 'comparative religion' is a complete and utter waste of time, unless, of course, you are willing to root-level study the semitic languages in which their scriptures were penned..

Knowledge of the traditional religious cultures and theologies of all our human ancestors is beneficial.

Moses was Trinitarian.

We can easily tell this from his writings....not that you study it, of course...

Gnaw of that one...

Yet no orthodox Jew believes this, otherwise he would be a 'Christian'. You'd have to prove that Moses 'definitively' teaches what Christians later define as the 'Trinity', instead of a vague sense of 'plurality' of Deity, assuming that that definitely PROVES such plurality infers only 3 distinct personages. Plurality of Deity can include more than just '3',...as some schools posit '7', '10', '12' aspects of Deity into infinity.

'God' ever remains the One which includes all diversity and plurality naturally within its creative nature. This can include a Trinity and from that core, many divine sons or emenations proceeding outward. For an even more glorious presentation of the 'Paradise Trinity' see the Urantia Papers treatise on such.

Which God?

There is only One Brahman. - from the universal womb of all the infinite Potentiality....there are many gods/goddess forms and personalities assumed in the play of creation.

That does not answer the question as to why the Jews thought it necessary to worship numerous gods.

Where did this idea come from...?

It may be natural for man to worship a plurality of 'gods' or 'goddesses' depending on his predisposition. 'God' is One and Many. The 'idea' of plurality is inherent in nature, - this doesnt mean however a definitive 'Christian' concept of 3 distinct divine personalities was accepted or even known to Jews before the dispensation of Christianity. - this 'revelation' came into more definitive form as it was developed within Christianity.

All the OT prophets were Trinitarian.

Again, thats an 'assumption'. Providing 'proof' would be a more difficult challenge...beyond more presuppositions, inferences, etc.

Yahweh came in the flesh as Malek Yahweh numerous times in the OT.

Maybe he did,....'God' can incarnate as much as He likes, and has sent many 'avatars' thru-out time to assist our spiritual evolution. This does not necessarily somehow prove the Trinity.

My concept of 'God' stemming from the base of 'Brahman' includes all forms of 'God', incorporeal' and 'corporeal', 'personal' and 'non-personal' since God's omnipresence pervades thru-out. All there is...is 'God'. All there is Consciousness, Energy, Spirit, Substance, Light. - these appear to be in movement, undergoing continual transformation...while 'Brahman' remains the underlying unchanging infinite reality behind all, supporting all.

'God' is before, behind and beyond all conception, in his purest essence. I have no problem with a Trinity, since 'God' includes all, because God is all. No need to cling to a 'dogma'. 'God' is beyond such. Concepts can be held, enjoyed and entertained even...but they must be recognized as being that....just concepts.


pj

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

They are of the same substance but are two distinct individuals.

That their NAME was Adam does not make them the same being.

Being = substance. Therefore the man and the woman are the same being. Don't think "person" when you think of being.

Man and woman are not exactly alike if you have not figured that out already

This is what I have been telling you. The man and the woman were the same being (substance) but not exactly alike. So the Father and the Son are the same being (substance) but not exactly alike.

 

[Apple7]

A matter of interpretation, - both Islam and Judaism maintain their fundamental monotheism. This specifically indicates a rejection of a the Christian concept of a 'Trinity'.

Their scriptures promote the Trinity.

Again...two entirely different things.

Clearly, you accept into your 'anything goes; I'm Ok, you're Ok theology' their unreferenced interpretation of their scriptures - which is flawed on all accounts.

A sense of plurality within the divine Unity is indicated in the word 'Elohim' and certain passages, but this is not traditionally taken as a 'specific' Trinity as conceived by christiains. 'God' is still always, eternally, indivisibly ONE. - one can certainly 'read' that into OT passages to prove their own concept of God.

You can't even tell us what you think the Trinity is.....can you?

Knowledge of the traditional religious cultures and theologies of all our human ancestors is beneficial.

In order to identify a counterfeit...not embrace it...

Yet no orthodox Jew believes this, otherwise he would be a 'Christian'.

As the NT records for us...many Jews converted to Christianity.

Modern day Jews are still living in denial and are lost.

You'd have to prove that Moses 'definitively' teaches what Christians later define as the 'Trinity', instead of a vague sense of 'plurality' of Deity, assuming that that definitely PROVES such plurality infers only 3 distinct personages. Plurality of Deity can include more than just '3',...as some schools posit '7', '10', '12' aspects of Deity into infinity.

Moses writes extensively about the triune God that he worshiped.

'God' ever remains the One which includes all diversity and plurality naturally within its creative nature. This can include a Trinity and from that core, many divine sons or emenations proceeding outward. For an even more glorious presentation of the 'Paradise Trinity' see the Urantia Papers treatise on such.

And...not a single reference to scripture...

There is only One Brahman. - from the universal womb of all the infinite Potentiality....there are many gods/goddess forms and personalities assumed in the play of creation.

Oh brother...

It may be natural for man to worship a plurality of 'gods' or 'goddesses' depending on his predisposition. 'God' is One and Many. The 'idea' of plurality is inherent in nature, - this doesnt mean however a definitive 'Christian' concept of 3 distinct divine personalities was accepted or even known to Jews before the dispensation of Christianity. - this 'revelation' came into more definitive form as it was developed within Christianity.

Scripture?

Again, thats an 'assumption'. Providing 'proof' would be a more difficult challenge...beyond more presuppositions, inferences, etc.

No.

Its quite clearly a fact for those that study scripture.

Maybe he did,....'God' can incarnate as much as He likes, and has sent many 'avatars' thru-out time to assist our spiritual evolution. This does not necessarily somehow prove the Trinity.

Again...can you even define 'Trinity'...?

 

[Pneuma]

Being = substance. Therefore the man and the woman are the same being. Don't think "person" when you think of being.


This is what I have been telling you. The man and the woman were the same being (substance) but not exactly alike. So the Father and the Son are the same being (substance) but not exactly alike.

By that reasoning then my wife, as we are ONE, and my sons because they are of the substance of ONE are all the same being, substance.

And as we are to be ONE with the Father as Christ is ONE with the Father I guess we can then conclude we are all God.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon

I was just sharing a more 'Unitarian' perspective on the matter. A Trinitarian would be more likely to identify the 'logos' as being God, from a prefigured concept of Jesus being in an eternal 'Godhead'. On a relational level, I think a Unitarian view is well enough, with the logos being that rational principle God uses in bringing forth creation, whether you choose to personalize the 'logos' or not.

This is assuming one comes to the text already having an opinion. I have tried to read this from any other perspective, and frankly, such is against what I read there. So my answer is "no."

There are some translations that say "the word was 'divine', and some that say the word was "a" god...but we wont go there just yet. We could open a thread just on John 1:1, but more on that later perhaps.

▲see▲ that's a preconception. The only reason you'd not believe me when I say "No" is because "you don't want to." That is ever only the reason anybody rejects truth. It doesn't fit your expectation paradigm, therefore, no matter how clear it is, you won't believe it. That is where we get the biblical term "turning a deaf ear" from.

There is more emphasis on Jesus being the 'Son' of God IMO,...any sharing of divinity with Jesus is more 'relational' because of that Sonship, but the greater Infinite Spirit-presence or Deity is always the Father. You'll note that eternal life in the gospel of John comes from believing 'God' sent His Son, and believing his word that you may have eternal life. See John 20:31 - eternal life is in the 'testimony' that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. There is no passage that says one has to believe Jesus is 'God' (per ones theology) in order to be saved.

Its natural to assume the Son takes on the divine nature of the Father, so in that sense....Jesus represents God. A Unitarian or Trinitarian view on this relationship could be had, but thats a matter of 'interpretation, point of view'.

Incorrect. This is coming to the text with an agenda in place. Jesus very plainly says He will send the Spirit, for instance. That is an equation. One He uses just after "How can you say, 'show us the Father,' Philip?"

I do not rob the Lord Jesus or any other avatar of their glory, only to say that glory belongs to All-Mighty 'God' Alone, the ineffable, omnipresent, indivisible, eternal, infinite, incorporeal, transcendent God-Presence, which alone is the source and support of all that exists in name and form. Remember John 4:24 (in context). God is Spirit and worship is ALWAYS directed towards the pure essence of Deity Alone (no matter what form or personality 'God' is expressing in....it is still 'God' alone that is venerated).

But I said it looks exactly like that. That you, a mortal, are saying "he's not God" when He Himself (at the very minimal least) seems to be saying "yes, I Am" (at the very least).

I think its a fundamental concept, that only God is God....and a more liberal one that He/She can manifest in/as any number of forms or personalities. This would certainly include Jesus as an 'avatar' of God.

▲also an importation into the text. God has no gender. We use "He" instead of "it" because He is a personal being."

Remember as a meta-theist and mystic, I include the religious traditions and metaphysics of both east and west,...being a student of universal spirituality, with more of an understudy in Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism)...holding a place of unique and synthesized understanding on the board here. Being very eclectic and liberal minded, I can share one point of view or many, but that does not mean it is my personally perferred view, or the only acceptable one. Anyone familiar with my theology knows this - I just happen to tend towards a more Unitarian preference at times (especially among die-hard more dogmatic Trinitarians who tend to be 'rigid' in their belief-system).

Of course. It is an "all paths lead to God" mysticism. Jesus said He was the only Way, Truth, and Life (Nobody gets to the Father but through Me)."

As a more pure spiritualist or mystic....I see God in all, and all in God (monist/pan-en-theist), - differences are just the mind making distinctions, seperating 'this' from 'that', the assumption of duality

.
Yup, see above ▲

All comes from God and returns to God...because the Substance of all substances, Mind of all minds, Soul of all souls, is 'God'. 'God' is the root of all existence and its potentials, the Being of beings...or the Self(atman) abiding in all sentient beings.

You'd need scripture before selling it. We challenge all presuppositional postulates.

As far as the analogy of good ole Dolly,...not sure this can be applied here as a perfect correlation to the relationship between Jesus and God (much more complex granted added theological definitions). Dolly the sheep is that one individual animal-form,..there are NOT two Dollies. Its one sheep (not siamese twins). Saying there are two makes no sense unless you 'qualify' how she is two.

I disagree. There is no need to 'qualify' a truth if it is true. "We" need to grasp it, but we do nothing to make a truth more truthful. So Dolly, qualified or otherwise, is one sheep in two bodies. Likewise, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God."
Regardless of who is selling you anything, it is very clear before translation. Anybody saying otherwise, frankly, is stupid or lying.
There is no possibility of a third option imo.

Still not getting the Dolly analogy, for we see her biological origin had 3 contributors. Still Dolly is not "2" or "3" but one entity in the form of her species....just like you alone have your own unique 'form' and 'personality' as an 'individual'.
pj

They are both exactly Dolly, so it cannot be the same as you and I. I agree it is an analogy, but at least we must say what is correct about it in an accurate language or it is no longer even an analogy.

 

[keypurr]

Being = substance. Therefore the man and the woman are the same being. Don't think "person" when you think of being.


This is what I have been telling you. The man and the woman were the same being (substance) but not exactly alike. So the Father and the Son are the same being (substance) but not exactly alike.

I don't think substance is the right word to use. Substance is matter, they are not the same matter. Man and wife are one in spirit but not same substance. Like we can be one with God but not same substance.