I believe Jesus Christ is an archetype or metaphor for the Divine in all of us. This is what the early Gnostics believed. The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus saying "He who drinks from my well, becomes as I am/"  The fact that both Christmas and Easter are celebrated at the equninox, demonstrates that Jesus mythologically symbolizes "New Life" in all of us--the transformation of each of us.

Modern culture devalues the imagination.  If it isn't factual, it isn't valued.  Hense the rise of fundamental.  The Mystery Religions, based on Egyptian and Greek myths, arose during a time when the imagination was valued.  Today, we devalue the imagination.  Yet, Jung points out how the mind identifies with images rather the abstractions.  I believed that Jesus Christ was largely a Jewish adaptation  of the Egyptian and Greek mysteries--it allows of to imagine how the Divine might dwell within each of us and how we might bring about the Kindom of God.

While God was in Jesus, I don't think that Jesus is all of God. Yet he is still a signpost to our humanity/divinity. The question of whether the stories are historical or factual misses the point. The real question is what do we learn about ourselves by hearing these stories?

Hi Fakir:

If one regards the cosmic totality as a self-generative, unitive whole, in a state of synthesis, in other words as God, then Jesus obviously was one with God, and so are you and I, along with everyone and everything else.

In a unitive universe, being united with God is a given. Acting godly, on the other hand, is a different matter. We can spend a lifetime getting better at it and still be far from perfect. What will greatly assist us in acting godly, however, is the Christ Consciousness expressed by Jesus as: "The Father and I are one."

Personally, I believe Jesus was a model, or visible demonstration, who represents all of us.  I think his first person references are to show us what we all will achieve. 

His NT story becomes embellished as time passed, going from a humble rabbi in the early texts, to the Christ in the later texts, up to 100 years later.  So, I don't believe he was God, I think he was a  mystic possessing tremendous spiritual gifts.

Fakirs Canada, incidentally, Josephus has been reasonably shown to not be a reliable source, and Tacitus and Lucian of Samosata appear nearly 200 years after the fact.  Even today, in 2008, I think its pretty difficult for us to know exactly what went on in 1808,  particularly in a different country/culture.  However, if one wants to put faith in all ancient schlolars, Irenaeus (circa 202 AD) states in "Against Heresies" Book II Chapter 22,

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

He very clearly states here and elsewhere, that Jesus lived to be 50 years old!
 

You might like to check out this video by Barrie Wilson Ph.D., author of "How Jesus Became Christian".

http://www.yorku.ca/akevents/flash/arts_letter/barrie_wilson/

 I believe Jesus was God, just like everybody else.

Hi Fakirs Canada

I confess that Jesus the Christ is my Lord and my God.

It means that I am not my own but that I belong body and soul both in life and in death to my Lord and my God who has redeemed me by the cross from death to life.

I believe that Jesus is God incarnate and that the Son is as much God as is the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I believe that Jesus is God the Son, who taught us how to live and how to love. He died on a cross to take the punishment that I deserved for my sins and rose from the dead. He defeated sin and death and in so doing has given me life. Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and I will NEVER sell Him out.

Reply to Oui: 

re "Josephus has been reasonably been shown to not be a reliable source"  Really?  How and by whom? 

re "Tacitus and Lucian of Samosata appear nearly 200 years after the fact"   Less true of Tacitus than it is of the source you cite to rebut him.  You might be interested in reading further on the current scholarly consensus regarding the reliability of Tacitus.  You could do worse than by starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus#Authenticity_and_Reliability

reply to ShamanWolf re "I believe that Jesus was God, just like everybody else."

Excuse me, do you seriously think that everybody believes that Jesus "was" God?

And your use of the past tense is interesting.  If Jesus "was" God, then, presumably, he's still around and is still God, right?

Also, how do you reconcile being a "panatheist" with a professed belief in Jesus as God?

Hi revjohn:  Thank you for your reply.  I am enjoying reading your comments as I come across them on the other threads.  Peace and grace to you too.  It's nice to meet up with you.  Regards.

To theofrog, Arminius and mfg50:  thank you for your thoughtful replies.  And thanks to consumingfire also.

Hi Fakirs and welcome

Yes i believe that Jesus is God incarnate here on earth with us.

I think the differences you will find here between the various Christians on the site is whether or not one believes jesus is divine.  Some do , some don't. 

Hi Fakirs Canada, and welcome to wondercafe. 

I think that ShamanWolf might have been suggesting that God is found in everyone, not that "everybody believes Jesus was God".  Just my take on it.

Fakirs Canada, re: Tacitus,

"The oldest manuscript of "Annals 1-6" is in the historic library of Lorenzo Medici ("The Magnificent"), and hence is known as the Codex Mediceus.  It has been dated from 850 AD, and the sylistic cues point to the German abbey of Fulda.  The source manuscript for all extant copies of "Annal 11-16", also from the same collection (Mediceus II) was written between 1038 and 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of Monte Casino, (destroyed in WWII)."

This is from this link:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/31122.html

Tacitus does not  proclaim Jesus to be God, only that he was executed and had a following.

Re: Josephus

"There are two extant references in Josephus on Jesus, the one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. These passages appear in The Antiquities of the Jews, written in the year 93 by the Jewish historian Josephus. All extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain the two passages about Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Though most scholars consider this passage genuine, its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus."

and "Some of the deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant:^[20] "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish."

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

My point regarding Irenaeus is not as a rebuttal to Tacitus, but that ancient writers abound, and contradictions are more than evident.

Yes, Oui, I know that Tacitus does not proclaim Jesus to be God - I never said he did.  I said that he confirms the crucifixion of Jesus. 

Hi blackbelt, thank you for your lovely answer, full of faith.  I have real problems with that "fully man, fully God" concept.  Also, Jesus does say that he was "at the side of God" before the world was created, which suggests to me that he himself believed he was something other than God.  Furthermore, he says "I am the son of Man."  And he refers to God as "Our Father."  None of that says "I am God" to me.

Hi paradox3, thank you for the clarification.

Hi lastpointe, thanks for your reply.  I found your comments on Ve's thread to be very interesting, and kind.  But I still don't understand why you and some of the others believe Jesus is God "incarnate."  I don't understand the scriptural basis for your belief or the 'faith reasons.'  I guess this comes to the question:  how can we communicate 'faith' to another person, who hasn't got it? 

great questions, love your website

Reply to blackbelt:  thank you for taking the time to write your last reply to me.  I'm impressed.  I don't believe in the divinity of Christ, much less have faith in it, as yet - but you and others are opening my mind to the possibility of its being true - through responses which seem to me to be grounded in theological knowledge.  Perhaps this is the great strength of theology - although it cannot communicate real faith, it can nevertheless open the mind to faith. 

P.S.  Check your 'wall,' please, blackbelt.

P.S.S.  And thank you very much for your kind comment about my site, blackbelt.

In today's world, which is full of anything and everything anti-Christian, this can be a common question and one that is hard for people to answer.

"Biblical Christology (that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ) shows that one and the same Jesus Christ is both God and man. While Christian tradition has always maintained this triple thesis that Jesus Christ is truly man, that He is truly God, and that the Godman, Jesus Christ, is one and the same person the heretical or erroneous tenets of various religious leaders have forced the Church to insist more expressly now on the one, now on another element of her Christology. A classified list of the principal errors and of the subsequent ecclesiastical utterances will show the historical development of the Church's doctrine with sufficient clearness. The reader will find a more lengthy account of the principal heresies and councils under their respective headings."

This topic is one that is simple and straight forward yet at the same time one that is deep and profound (naturally, like the Divine nature). One needs to be willing to create an informed conscience on this matter. I recommend the following:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm

Check your profile page at the bottom for a message on your wall

ha ok got it, hmmmmm nothing there, i think i might have deleted it by accedent, mabey fakirs can resend the message

Panentheist, Fakir, Panentheist <;-}

Fakirs, you communicate "faith" to a person who hasn't got it by demonstrating what you are talking about! Hopefully your actions will initiate a conversation!

Blessings.

This has been one of the better discussions that I have seen in a while here.

The fully human/fully divine dichotomy is one that Christians have been struggling with since very early in the first century. I don't think we have got very far in resolving the issue. I'm not sure that we need to.

My personal take on it is simply this, that as we grow closer in relationship with God, we grow closer to the image of the divine within us. Jesus, as the fully obedient son of God lives out that image in a way that challenges us and gives us hope for our own lives.

Jesus was a dude with some bright ideas and a devoted following that eventually became perverted with the idea that he was actually a diety. He was cool and everything but he's no more a god than me or you.

And by 'Panentheist,' do you mean 'Pantheist?'

Hi Fakirs Canada,

Panentheism and Pantheism sound alot alike but that is about all.

Panentheism is literally all in God.  It suggests that everything has a relationship to God but does not state that all things are God.

Pantheism is literally all is God.  It suggests that we are all pieces of God in some way.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi revjohn:  thanks for the articulate and informative reply - all the more impressive in the early hours of the morning, which it must be even if you're on the east coast.  I'm in Edmonton, it's 4:13 AM and I haven't got around to going to bed yet.

Grace and peace and a great day to you, John.

Best regards,

Marnie Tunay

Hi Fakirs Canada,

Our Samoyed-Lab cross is still on Newfoundland time even though we've been in Ontario for 3 years now.

5:15am (Eastern) is walk time.  Nothing like a stiff -8 C breeze up your nose to start the day.  He loves the cold.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn

-8C.  Poor muffin.  Come to the "Nation's Capital".  The politcians all went home and the temperature has dropped to -21C.

Never realized how much we depended on them for heat.

IT

Russ

Hi RussP,

Polithermal energy.  I wonder if that is green energy?

So, the politicians have all gone home meaning that the House of Commons is quiet and peaceful.  That coincides with a drop in the temperature.

One wonders if that isn't the result of hell freezing over?

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn

Ouch!

IT

Russ

Our country's weather is so messed up...lol

As-Salaamu Alaiykum! Eid Mubarak!!

Happy Eid ul-Adha everyone!

-Omni

Good morning folks, this is a great thread - good to see such thoughtful discussion.  When I read the Bible, two (among others) things come to mind - the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus - that is the Jesus who was human like the rest of us, who was born like us from a human mother, the father I will not venture to debate on, and who went about in his Jewish communities preaching about that was needed to bring his people back to God, in other words, back into the relationship where they revered God and followed God's ways as dictated in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Because his teachings were at odds with the religiousl practices of the time and consequently stirred the people up, he became an annoyance to the religious leaders and the Roman rule.  Consequentially he was dealt with as any normal agitator, he was put to death on the Roman Cross.

That is one story, the second is the post-Easter Jesus.  Following his death, those who followed his Way continued to believe that there was a better way than that exhibited by the religious leaders of the time and continued to meet and proclaim what Jesus had taught.

Now we come to the trickey part, the recording of Jesus' words and actions.  Remember, there were no tape recorders or vidio machines at the time, nothing was written until about 20 years at the earliest (Paul) and about 100 years (John) after Jesus' death.  Paul says little about Jesus' human life - it wasn't important to him - it was Jesus' spiritual life that gave Paul the fire - and still gives us the fire!

When we come to the gospels, it is interesting that for both Marrk and John, the first and last writers of the canonical Gospels, Jesus birth was not important - it was his message of love, peace, and respect for his fellow human being as expressed in a love of God that was important - and still is!

When it comes to Matthew and Luke and the "recorded" history of Jesus birth and earily life, does it really matter that Jesus was born of a virgin, that is no human spirm started his conception?  I tend to think not - for me, and I only speak for me, the birth, like for any baby is born out of God's love for us.  For me, the "virgin" birth is that of the purity of the act of bringing a child into the world.

Now, having said that, I do believe that there was something special about Jesus that is not present in the rest of us - he had/has a special connection with God that the rest of us do not - what that is can be gleaned from the what the NT writers speak of him.

As to the historical writings as recorded in the NT about what Jesus said and did, I am not convinced that they are factual in every word and detail - in fact they cannot be - there are too many discrepancies as to the details of his travels etc.  But what is true is his message of love.  The NT scriptures were written from a memory  and or a testamonial base - that is people looking back on Jesus' life, what he did and said and wrote a story about his life works as they experienced in the post-Easter period.  They also wrote for their audience - as any writer does - even the OT writers did the same.

All this to say, Was Jesus the son of God?  Yes, Jesus was the son of God as we are children of God.  Was/is Jesus divine?  Yes, Jesus is divine as are we.  Is Jesus our Lord and saviour?  Yes, Jesus is our Lord and saviour - but the theological thinking is different for different people - for some it is Jesus' death on the cross, for others it is in his message and how we try and live that message of hope, peace, joy, and love.  If I read the Scriptures correctly, it was in Jesus' living that he was in communion with God, not just his death... and death could not contain him.

4chun8 to have found this thread, Blessings to you all.

4chun8

Welcome on board, and prepare for the ride of your life.

You said (just haven't gotten the quotes to work for me) Following his death, those who followed his Way continued to believe that there was a better way than that exhibited by the religious leaders of the time and continued to meet and proclaim what Jesus had taught.

That, IMHO, is where the whole thing fell off the rails.  Rather than following his Way, people started following Him.  Totally different concept.

IT

Russ

well according to his way, he is himself the way, he is the bread of life, he is the first and last , alpha and omega, hs is the I AM, he is the good sheapard of his flock, we do need acording to Him to Go through Him to get to heaven.

so thats one of the reasons people follow him, he knows the way

according to scripture of course

blackbelt

"we do need acording to Him to Go through Him to get to heaven"

So we are back to the perpetual, my way or the highway.  One God for all, but only "members" are allowed through the door?

Sorry, but I must disagree.

IT

Russ

You all have hit on points of reference - when one says that Jesus is quoting himself as being the way, one wonders how much is Jesus speaking or the gospel writer speaking on Jesus' behalf (that is the gospel writer's interpretation of who Jesus saw himself as.)

Russ, I take it that when you say follow him rather than his way you mean following him a sort of idol - a feeling that I sometimes get when I hear some talk of Jesus.

Of course this all comes down to the initial question that started this thread, Is Jesus God?  Or do we see Jesus in light of panenthiesm?

As one who is expected to bring/take the "Word of God" to the people each Sunday and in whatever I do, I find it difficult to sometimes rraise such questions with some of my congregants - I have certainly been called Non-Christian by some of my fellow clergy - a non-believer of the literal word - of which I am not afraid - I know, as much as anyone, what I believe and how Jesus plays out in my life.

As for there being only one way to God, NO! - as much as I believe in Jesus' message and who for me is the Way, I am not so smug to believe that Jeesus is the only way.  There are many great religions throughout the world, many much older than Christianity - the best part of this is that they all have the same underpinnings, that of love of a deity, love of neighbour and environment, and love of self.  ONE MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB AND MANY WAYS TO GET THERE.

Blessings, 4chun8

You are missing a key point.

We are all members.

Jesus paid the membership fee for every single person on earth!

Why not open the envelope and take out your ticket.

They're not for sale, they're free!

Bjorne

4chun8

Exactly.  I "think" Jesus wanted us to follow His God, not him.

IT

Russ

bornfree

As long as what you are advocating  is not "Follow Jesus or don't get to Heaven". That is where I have a problem.

IT

Russ

The interesting aspect is that every time this issue comes up we hear from those who love esoteric thought and as well from those who are conservative on the point of Jesus as God.

It is the consensus of the scholars that there was a historic person named ( in our language) Jesus. There was also the influence of the community who experienced Jesus and used an template from their Judaism to speak of Jesus as the Christ. 

Those who use an esoteric view tend to use a theory of eternal return or some archetype.  This is modernism - dependent on Frazer ( Golden Bough) and methodology of using similarity as the core theory - in a post modern view this is hard to hold.

The issue in theology is the concept of incarnation.  There is little dispute that the affirmation of incarnation is central for Christians. There are, however, major differences in the way it is understood. Many Christians understand it to mean that a God, who is otherwise “other” and remote, once broke into history to reveal a nature that is otherwise hidden and to act for our salvation. Some of those who interpret incarnation in this way affirm it quite straightforwardly as a supernatural event. Others assume that it is a mythological teaching. Of these, some reject it accordingly; others find rich meaning in the myth.

Still other Christians, and this includes those of us influenced by process thought, understand Christianity as an incarnational faith, meaning that it affirms that God is incarnate in the whole world. For us “incarnation” does not point to a single supernatural act of God. It points to the basic nature of God’s relation to the world, a relation that is made fully manifest in Jesus.

In the panentheistic view there is a reality that provides order and novelty in the world.  Whitehead calls it the Primordial Nature of God.  This is an understanding of the dipolar nature of God - aim and the consequent nature - the latter is God is affected by what happens and has to respond in novel ways in the next moment of history.  This is similar to John and the logos - nothing comes into being apart from the logos.  In panentheism nothing comes into being apart from the aim of God.

 Process/relational theology follow this logos in the idea that incarnation is found in all living reality - the aim of God is found and works in all things that are actual. 

If God is in all things and working toward transformation ( novel outcomes) then one can say that God is in Jesus, and in a similar way in us.  There is a difference of degree in the theology ( Christology) that God is in Jesus in a fuller way - Jesus was more open to the aim of God in such a way that his consciousness becomes more God conscious - God intoxicated.  Thus the early church saw in Jesus God who was also in the tradition of Judaism and thus created the myth or narrative of Jesus as the Christ - a moment of creative advance which becomes a moment of creative transformation - history for them has been changed and by extension for us history is changed - transformed - a new creation is created and thus we can affirm that God is in Jesus and thus Jesus can be for us a Christ event,

To add to John - panentheism means God is everything and God is also a reality - the world is the world and the world is in God -

What I am saying is that the only way to live with God for eternity is to choose to. He is so gracious that He won't force you to be with Him. If you reject His offer of eternal goodness, then that is your choice.

BornFree: your name does not imply your theology - Is God male, or as one of my female profs once asked with certain indignity, "Since when did God grow a penis?"

As for the rest of the discussion to date it is easy to see how so many trees have been cut discussing an issue of faith - it is different for each person and like the gospels, this is what makes this faith of ours so wonderful - assuming of course we stick to Jesus' commandments.

4chun8

BornFree

OK, I shall cut to the chase.  I am a Muslim, I do not believe in Jesus Christ, can I get to Heaven?

IT

Russ

Jesus never said any of that. Other people said those things about Jesus. Those people could've been perverting his actual teachings. Direct quotes from Jesus have to be taken with skepticism because we have no guarantees that they are actually his words, or even vaguely represent them. If the bible was a secular text, you would have a bitch of a time trying to defend your claim that the Gospels are the historical truth of Jesus' life to an historian.