Yes-- while a man was raised up, a divine spirit descended.
Yes-- while a man was raised up, a divine spirit descended.
This is the most nonsensical thing I’ve ever heard - besides the doctrine of the trinity.
If we may learn from man, then there is no reason whatsoever for Jesus to be a deity.
It’s important to note that ‘the word of god’ is not the Creator. Word play, senses of words. My friend Bill received the bill —> The bill was with Bill and was Bill. Now, you can think some kind of mystical hypostatic union is going on with the bills OR you can recognize the use of multiple senses of a word.
Words are an attribute of a person, not the person, himself. “The President issued an executive order.” The executive order is not the President but has the authority of the President.
That's unnecessarily critical. What is it that is nonsensical? @RedFan told you what Clement of Alexandria said.
It's true-- that's what he said. So that's not nonsensical. Save some hyperbole for rainy days when you can't cut hay.
I suppose that was a little harsh but I meant it as a personal observation.
I'm glad you asked. Where to begin?
1. You cannot justify a thing must be a certain way by confessing in the very same sentence it does not have to be that way. Given that we may learn from man, there is no necessity for Christ to be God.
2. Change the referents to observe the sense the sentence makes (or doesn't make).
I say, the <Word of God> became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God.”
- I say, wisdom became <personified>, that you may learn from <the personification> how <the personification> may become the words of wisdom.
- I say, baseball uniforms became <washed>, that you may learn from <the washed> how <the washed> may become baseballs.
3. And if "man may become God" is legitimate theology - and Jesus was God - what was the basis for the execution of Jesus? The king is not God but his Anointed according to Scripture. This means one must jettison the theology Jesus believed, as a Jew born under the law, and embrace an entirely new theology contrary to Scripture and the Apostles did not write about.
One more time, the 2nd part of the sentence has nothing to do with the first part. Simply, "you may learn from man how to become God" is consistent with Ps 2 and Deut 18:15-18. Nothing suggested Yahweh's annointed will become God. It is enough that the Anointed becomes the son of YHWH.
2The kings of the earth take a stand, and the rulers take counsel together against Yahweh and against his Anointed,a saying,
3“Let’s break their restraints apart and cast their cords from us.”
4He who sits in the heavens laughs. The Lord mocks them.
5Then he will speak to them in his anger, and terrify them in his wrath, saying,
6“I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”
7I will proclaim the decree of Yahweh. He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.
Ps 2:2-7
And yet, with this statement you are insisting that must be a certain way.
Sure but no contradictions. Many things must be a certain way, such as parents older than their children. Contradicting yourself is not a must.
Sure but no contradictions. Many things must be a certain way, such as parents older than their children. Contradicting yourself is not a must.
In the same sentence, no less.
This was the exact premise that Jesus confronted the religious leaders with.
Correct. I adopt your distinction. Henceforth I will use "deity" rather than "divine."
While I can find no recorded statement of Jesus unequivocally claiming that He is a deity (although some gospel verses come close), that does not mean He wasn't (He kept His identity secret in other contexts, particularly in Marks' gospel). Conversely, the absence of a record of such a statement in the four canonical gospels does not mean He never uttered such words unequivocally -- only that the four gospels (probably one tenth of one per cent of what He said in his 30-odd years walking the planet) don't record it.
You might think that such an unequivocal declaration would be noteworthy enough for one of the four gospel writers to record it. But then, you might think that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was noteworthy enough for one of the Synoptics to mention it. Pretty big miracle! According to John 12:11, “it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.”
If Clement of Alexandria were posting on this site I suspect he would offer this one:
- I say, the Word of God became <the man Jesus Christ>, that you may learn from <the man Jesus Christ> how <men> may become God.
That's pretty good RedFan. People have trouble swallowing it I think, because it's a rather big and bitter pill. First of all to go along with Clement, you have to treat carefully the subject-- which is specifically "the Word of God" -since that is what became flesh. This requires an acknowledgment of scripture that describes this word of God as having both been with God and in fact-- "God."
The translators have done us all a great disservice in that they constantly use the word "God" in a generic sense, when we know that the Hebrew used different words for specific meaning-- we see this in the old testament where 'elohim' is used and it doesn't mean "God" at all, rather it simply means- 'divine being' or 'spirit.' Are there divine beings that are not God-- of course, and we think of them as small "g" gods, which only further convolutes the subject matter.
For example-- our understanding of the verse (and likely Clement would be included here) -would be entirely different if we had been able to read it more like-- In the beginning was the creator son-the divine expression of the Father and the son was with the Father, and the son was elohim.
While Clement might think that the man Jesus Christ was instructing us 'how men may become God' -I don't think so. I would say that the man Jesus Christ was teaching us to understand our true nature-- our spiritual or divine nature. Not that it is something we must become, but something that we are.
Appeal to Ignorance. The fact that Scripture does NOT have a trinity verse or even a man-is-god thesis statement is sufficient reason to reject the claim - not accept the null hypothesis claim without evidence.
H0. Trinity is real/Jesus is God.
Ha: Trinity is false/Jesus is NOT God.
Evidence: None
Conclusion: Reject H0 and accept Ha.
Is it your position that upper limit for man is to become God? Isn't that the Original Sin?