He explained his views--- He said clearly that he regards it as union with God, rather than becoming God. Did you miss that, or are you just ignoring that he said that.
How do you understand John 14:15-20 ?
He explained his views--- He said clearly that he regards it as union with God, rather than becoming God. Did you miss that, or are you just ignoring that he said that.
How do you understand John 14:15-20 ?
I think you are missing my position. "God became man that man might become God" -- the catchy English paraphrase of Athanasius's Greek -- declares first that God became man (in the form of Jesus Christ), and I agree with that. It declares second that man(kind) can "become God," and I don't take that literally. If that's the "man-is-god" thesis you are referring to, I'm not buying into it, not in the literal sense of the English words anyway. (If you and I were both fluent in fourth century Greek we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)
Yes-- it's often literary, and interpretive issues at the forefront-- more often than textual. It's how people understand the text, rather than the text itself that invites disagreement. If one can see first that God is spirit and not a man-- then of course "God" doesn't become a man at all, except in the sense that the spirit of God descends upon a man and thereby God remains spirit, and spiritual and divine-- and it is this divinity that fills the man, becoming flesh- His logos. And at end of life, this spirit ascends back to where it came from- to the Father where it unites-- divine/spirit reuniting in spirit, free from the body and with God-- divine once more.
Not at all. I'm pointing out his contradiction, clearly asserting a double meaning since he ALSO regards "becoming God" to literally mean Jesus is fully God - but apparently not other men.
Trinitarians are mystical dualists. He simultaneously holds contradictory views:
- "Becoming God" is just a euphemism for unity.
- "Fully God" is literally true for Jesus, having nothing to do with unity of men (which includes Jesus) with God.
Frankly, it is worse than holding contradictions. It's making up meaning of words as you go. Anyone can believe anything they want but they are not entitled to their own logic or facts (including word meanings).
Ol' Barn
Member
I find it interesting that folks can't accept a "Godhead" that cannot be encompassed within human logic. I'm a trinitarian, I suppose, but I must confess that, with all of the armchair metaphysical speculation that's been generated by the Interweb, I no longer feel very comfortable with the label.
And I always find myself figuratively reaching to remove my shoes when I read a lot of this "holy ground" (IMO) stuff, much less when I dare to participate.
.
And I always find myself figuratively reaching to remove my shoes when I read a lot of this "holy ground" (IMO) stuff, much less when I dare to participate.
.
I find it interesting that folks can't accept a "Godhead" that cannot be encompassed within human logic. I'm a trinitarian, I suppose, but I must confess that, with all of the armchair metaphysical speculation that's been generated by the Interweb, I no longer feel very comfortable with the label.
And I always find myself figuratively reaching to remove my shoes when I read a lot of this "holy ground" (IMO) stuff, much less when I dare to participate.
.
Folks need to work this out for themselves. I've never-- not ever-- not once, seen anyone successfully badgered into belief. A lot of Forums simply ban such topics, mostly because members can't behave, and really-- because some members won't believe- like they are supposed to. That's the bottom line. They don't allow members to have, and certainly don't permit them to share or discuss alternative points of view.
This won't ever be that kind of Forum.
I do believe in the Trinity. This "Godhead" you mention, that can't be fully encompassed within human understanding-- and I believe that's because it is spiritual, and not human in nature. God is spirit, and the Godhead-- The Father, is spirit. The spirit, mentioned in scripture-- duh... is spirit, and the son-- is spirit--- and sent, to descend from the spiritual home to instruct mankind, by becoming just like us.
It's spiritual, and since we are human and not spiritual in nature, how can we even express what we do not perceive? We gain some understanding by examining the human nature, which we are told is a reflection, or likeness (or image) of the spiritual realm. And in our human nature, we see clearly that offspring come from a mystical union-- The seed from a Father, a Mother who receives this seed and carries the child as it develops to a sufficient state.... the fruit of this union.
In heaven-- though we don't fully understand, but scripture insists-- Father, Spirit, Son
On earth-- and evident all around us-- Father, Mother, Fruit
I am not saying, and no Trinitarian I know would ever say -- certainly no early church father I've read has ever claimed -- that Jesus "became" God. Our position is that the Son of God was always God, and at a particular moment in human history became man. Not the other way around. (It's tough for me to read John 17:5 or Col. 1:17 or lots of other Bible verses any other way.)
If I can recommend an article to you. Byrne, Brendan, "Christ’s Pre-Existence in Pauline Soteriology," Theological Studies, Vol. 58, No. 2 (May 1997), p 308-330.
Are you familiar with the psalm where God knew us before we were in the womb? @Mattathias can elaborate on the concept that God’s idea of us - including Jesus - can come before we exist or that we first existed only in God’s mind.
Either way, son’s by definition are created beings, and these verses do not come close to saying Jesus was ever God, let alone always God.
Sadly, trinitarians resorting to such extreme Eisegesis reveals their doctrine is missing from Scripture. Otherwise, there would be no need to desperately speculate reading into such verses.
That's the heart of the disconnect I think. While we know that "Jesus" was a little baby born 2000 years ago-- there's this whole-- but he was there at creation....
No-- Jesus was not. I'll refer you back to that we know he was born 2000 years ago. So the scriptures are not talking about "Jesus" having been there, but something/someone else. An earlier version-- a spiritual counterpart.
Last edited:
I take it you meant 2,000 years ago. Scripture is explicit that Jesus changed over time, growing in stature and wisdom. Speculating that he was not flesh before he was flesh is just another admission that the trinity if false because Scripture also says God NEVER changes.
Death is the biggest change a life form can experience. So, they have Jesus changing all over the place, which is just another proof that he is NOT God, never was God and according to Rev 1:1 never will be God. So, saying it is important that he is what he is not, never was and never will be is silly. But there you have it.
Ol' Barn
Member
I really like what you have to say here. I can't say I agree fully with all of it, but that's only because we (definitely including me) speculate farther than what I believe the Word actually reveals.
I pass by so many comments on these forums that make me cringe a little, and I want to reply but I just think that all I'm going to do is make someone mad.
People seize on somewhat incidental remarks in the Bible and make them cardinal maxims. Personally, I have to keep a bailer handy for that kind of stuff. I'm really a theological minimalist, which is so dreadfully hard to do with a book containing ¾ million English words, you know?
.
I think that is precisely why it’s all worth discussing - and also why folks shouldn’t be dogmatic about their beliefs.
It’s beliefs we are talking about, not facts. It really is.