--On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:54:16 george murphy wrote: >Stuart d Kirkley wrote: > >> >> -- >> >> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:22:47 >> george murphy wrote: >> >Stuart d Kirkley wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:24:28 >> >> >> bivalve wrote: >> >> >> Even being born as the heir apparent to Caesar >> >> >> would have made the Creator physically dependent on others to feed >> >> >> and clean Him. >> >> >> >> >> Stuart Kirkley wrote >> >> >> I still, for the life of me, can not understand how people can rationally state that Jesus was God incarnate. To me this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks of theololgy which stems from and leads to a narrowness of scriptural interpretation. If, as the Bible states clearly many times, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to be the Saviour of the world, reveals God as Parent and Son as offspring, distinct and individual, how do you arrive at the idea that Jesus was God???!! I just find it incredulous that well reasoned people can actually hold to this doctrine. >> >> >> Sorry, I had to get that out. >> >> > >> >> George Murphy wrote: >> >> >1) The real stumbling block (_skandalon_) is not simply that Jesus is God Incarnate but that he died on the cross - I Cor.1:18-31. >> >> > >> >> >2) Scripture also says that "the Word was God" (Jn.1:3), that "in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" (Col.2:9) &c. >> >> > >> >> >3) "Rationality" is a criterion for judging not premises but the way one thinks from premises. Christian thought properly begins with the belief that Jesus is fully human and fully divine and develops - rationally - its concept of God from there. It does not begin with some philosophical assumptions about the unity of God and then try to shoehorn the divinity of Christ into that understanding of God - though unfortunately that's the way that theology often has worked. >> >> > >> >> >4) The proper Christian understanding of God is trinitarian, not because of an _a priori_ belief that God is three and one but precisely as a way of trying to make sense of the belief that the one who died on the cross is "true God of true God." >> >> > >> >> > Shalom, >> >> > George >> >> > >> >> >George L. Murphy >> >> >http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ >> >> >"The Science-Theology Dialogue" >> >> >> >> >SK wrote: >> >> >OK, first I have no idea what you mean by 1., unless you mean that Jesus did not actually die as he proved three days later. The thing is, is that he did die out of mortal selfhood and was resurrected into his divine eternal selfhood which was the animating spirit of his earthly existence in the first place. >> > >> > "What I mean" is what Paul means - that a crucified Messiah is a scandal to "Jews and Greeks" - i.e., good religious & philosophical folks. It goes against our conceptions of divine power, glory, &c. It is "foolishness." _A fortiori_, the idea of a crucified _God_ is scandalous to commonsense ways of thinking about the divine. >> > >> >> As for 2., by simply stating some Scripture does not give me any basis to understand where you are coming from. Yes, the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, but just what is the Word? To me it is the Truth or the ever present reality of divine government which has appeared in all ages in various forms, as a burning bush, as a still small voice, as a guiding star. Jesus was the embodiment of Truth, but as a human he was not the whole of Truth. Jesus said I go unto the Father, , that is he sought the whole of Truth and lived it, but he was not that whole. Thus his humility in the face of Truth. >> > >> > Where I am coming from is where John 1:1-14 is coming from. The Word that was God & was made flesh is Jesus. >> > >> >> 3. - I prefer to let God do the conceiving, after all He is the Creator. >> > >> > If you don't want to do theology, that's your privilege. But then don't proclaim your opinions about theology. >> > >> >> 4. Again, there are a lot of different doctrines out there, the notion of the Trinity is one of them. God said, I am that I am. To me that means one and one only and doesn't leave any room for any other entity. The trinity to me speaks more about the quality, not the quantity of God. >> > >> > Precisely. The dogma of the Trinity is not about arithmetic & certainly is not a denial of the unity of God. It has to do with the quality of that unity, which is organic rather than mathematical. >> > >> > Shalom, >> > George >> > >> >George L. Murphy >> >http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ >> >"The Science-Theology Dialogue" >> > >> S.K. wrote: >> >OK, I'm just going to let 1. go for now, and your little quip on 3. can be forgiven. > > There's nothing to forgive. If you're not able to support a statement then you shouldn't make it. > >> We seem to agree on 4. more or less, > > Obviously not, since below you label the doctrine of the Trinity "bizarre". > >> but 2. hmmm, this is where I have a major disagreement and not so much with you but with the strange doctrine taught by so many churches that Jesus was God, and the use of Scripture like John 1:14 and others to support this. I don't know if you actually read my response to 2. above, but that is what I believe and understand to be Jesus' birthright. > >> For every Sriptural quote you use to declare the doctrine that Jesus was God I can reveal dozens more that will refute your claim. For instance read just a couple of verses later in John 1:18 ' No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' > > Apparently you don't realize that there is very strong manuscript evidence for "It is God the only Son" rather than "the only begotten Son" in Jn.1:18, and that the former is reading is adopted both in the United Bible Societies Greek text and the New Revised Standard Version. > But of course we can play dueling proof texts all night. That will get us nowehere unless we have some understanding of a basic interpretive principle of theological substance with which to read scripture. That is the point that Athanasius kept returning to in the 4th century with favorite Arian texts like "the Father is greater than I" &c. > & I think our basic theological difference can be stated pretty simply: Is Jesus primarily the savior of the world or an example for us to follow? Of course he is the latter - but so are Jeremiah, Socrates, Confucius, and Mother Teresa. > >> OK, if no one has seen God at any time then, when people looked at Jesus they couldn't be looking at God, according to the writer. Also again, the Son is in the bosom of the Father - If Jesus is God, then he must be the Father, who somehow begot himself and now holds himself in his own bosom, that's quite a contortionistic feat. > > This shows that you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, which does not say that the Father is identical with the Son: Jesus didn't pray to himself. It is one thing not to believe this doctrine, quite another not to know what it is. > > I do not think that it is fruitful to continue this conversation. You may close if you wish. > > Shalom, >George
Well it certainly won't be fruitful if you selectively editorialize my statements. Nor can it be fruitful if you condescend and goad, which is your wont. But I forgive you. Yes, there have been many who have led exemplary lives , you stated a few. Obviously no one has lived a life of the same magnitude as Jesus who was clearly the messiah, or the way to eternal life, but my point (which you handily left out of your deconstruct) is that by claiming that Jesus was God, you put that messiahship way out of the reach of mere mortals, you set his example as being so beyond the pale of human endeavour that none can hope to duplicate his spirituality. Well his spirituality was to reveal our familial spirituality. He was fully victorious over the burdens and frailties of mortal existence as he proved the undying reality of immortal existence, not just for himself, but for all mankind. He was the messiah, the way, but as soon as you call him God, it makes that way unattainable. I do! n't think that was what Jesus had in mind when he said 'the works that I do, he shall do also'. He revealed the divine sonship and man's true and complete dominion over the earth, over mortal existence. He declared that this sonship was not his alone but was the proper inheritance of every child of God. He knew this inheritance to be indestructible as the true reality of man's being is forever held in the bosom of the Father, and this truth along with his unfailing communion with God allowed him to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, and cleanse the lepers. He commanded us to do the same. Would he state this if he thought he was the only one capable of doing this, ie. if he were God, and he alone. Paul states 'for we have not received the spirit of fear, but the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father.' The spirit of adoption is Christs precious gift to us. Jesus revealed that each of us has an unbroken dear relationship with our creator, and he showed us ho! w w e can each find that relationship, through him. He said 'he that believeth on me, believeth not on me but on him that sent me' He gave all the glory to God, and would take none for himself. He was truly the most humble servant of God. We can only hope to approximate his humility. May Gods goodness shine on you. Stuart Kirkley
2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos. http://my.lycos.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 03 2002 - 02:35:50 EST