Jesus Christ

[davidk]

Dear Davidk,

 

Love in Christ, the Light, Jesus to you and for all,

 

Instead of stating what you percieve as the collective opinion, please state what is your issue that you agree with or disagree with so that we can have a conversation, learn and know.

 

I have not seen that I or JosephM or Grampa are wrong, I have seen a lot of pontification that goes nowhere. We do not want to go nowhere, we want to go somewhere, we seek Love.

 

Jesus taught us to Love, to love our neighbor and that includes even you. We also know that we can not love those that abuse us, remember my personal situation with my toxic relationship with the one I wed? Her betrayal was not a demonstration of love, her continued attack was not a demonstration of love.

 

What is Love?

Where is Love?

 

Have you shown Love?

 

I wish you Love,

 

I know the Love and Peace of GOD, my life at this time doesn't reflect that knowledge, I did not deserve to be treated and abused in the manner that many (strangers, friends and family) have collectively attacked me.

 

Please do show us you're GOD...

 

Be progressive

I'd prefer to observe and ask questions rather than 'litter' the blog with 'conservative' doctrine (per McKenna's request). I intend my observations to be rather pointed, not to antagonize but to encourage the answers to be just as direct. I'm not stating whether you are right or wrong, just explain.

[minsocal]

Minsocal - what a great statement. Indeed very often that 'miracle' might be nothing more than recognising how we are manipulated by society - and not always for the better.

 

Wayseer,

 

Thank you. It was a long hiatus between where I was some 35 years ago and now. I always had something of a resentment about being manipulated by society, but that's a long story. The main point, I guess, is that I came back ...

 

minsocal

[davidk]

Hello David,

 

I do not speak for all. It seems to me your collective opinion inaccurately portrays at least what I wrote as you use the words "Jesus really doesn't matter". Saying that ones teaching is more important than ones personage doesn't say the personage really doesn't matter it just says what it says that the teaching are 'more important" than the personage.

 

Secondly, you say of the teachings that ' only whatever we decide them to be" While it is true that each of us places different, none or greater emphasis on certain teachings, it only speaks of where each individual is at on his journey and what the spirit has personally revealed as true. It seems to me 'good' not to try and put people in a box and define progressive Christians as you do as no two may agree on all things at his/her stage of developement/transformation. Transformation to the new creature in Christ is a daily process rather than than destination until one has arrived. Therefor I say it is 'best' not to box one in on the way. I die daily.

 

Just some thoughts for you to consider,

Love Joseph

Hey Joseph,

I appreciate your candor and honest reflection.

 

Firstly, let me be clear. I am not defining any progressive christians. The posts have clearly and specifically been about progressive theology.

 

Might I say here that I understand when it is said the teaching is more important than the personage.

 

This still leaves Jesus as nothing unique since it was applied to Jesus as well all great teachers. Because the word 'personage' is very impersonal and indistinct, it devalues the real person by intent. Given this position, there would be no consequence in just ignoring the personage while remembering some profound things.

 

There is no argument about us all being at different stages in our own personal journey, and truths have individual applications for each of us. But that does not mean truth is relative. If truth is true, it is true for everyone. If we believe otherwise, we make ourselves autonomous. Why would the Spirit reveal truths that could also be considered untrue?

 

There is a certain inconsistency when first the emphasis is on the 'teachings' and then in the next paragraph the emphasis is on the teacher: "Transformation to the new creature in Christ...".

 

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

Dk

[minsocal]

That certainly is a Progressive Christian perspective! Thanks for sharing!

Fascinating thoughts, minsocal. I think you may be right. To respond to your last sentence in particular - it seems to me that many of the original Christians felt freed by Jesus for one reason or another; to take a more progressive POV, I suppose it would be that his teachings broke down traditional social barriers and allowed them to experience God's Grace, which they had not felt worthy of before because of the standard teachings of the time - and that, I think, would certainly be experienced as a miracle.

 

McKenna,

 

Several years ago I was in a practicum session related to my PsyD. Somehow, I ended up defending the position that spirituality and psychology were inseparable. At the time, I really thought I was out on a limb. When I finished, my instructor simply said "OK class, that's the point"!

 

minsocal

[JosephM]

Hey Joseph,

I appreciate your candor and honest reflection.

 

Firstly, let me be clear. I am not defining any progressive christians. The posts have clearly and specifically been about progressive theology.

 

Might I say here that I understand when it is said the teaching is more important than the personage.

 

This still leaves Jesus as nothing unique since it was applied to Jesus as well all great teachers. Because the word 'personage' is very impersonal and indistinct, it devalues the real person by intent. Given this position, there would be no consequence in just ignoring the personage while remembering some profound things.

 

There is no argument about us all being at different stages in our own personal journey, and truths have individual applications for each of us. But that does not mean truth is relative. If truth is true, it is true for everyone. If we believe otherwise, we make ourselves autonomous. Why would the Spirit reveal truths that could also be considered untrue?

 

There is a certain inconsistency when first the emphasis is on the 'teachings' and then in the next paragraph the emphasis is on the teacher: "Transformation to the new creature in Christ...".

 

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

Dk

 

Hi David,

 

There is no inconsistency as you seem to suppose. Christ is not a man nor does it place emphasis on a man. Christ is a word that speaks of the annointing spirit of God which indwells all. Christ in you, your hope of glory or the presence of God. You do not transform to the man Jesus, you transform to the 'annointing' of God just as Jesus did. Perhaps you will see, there is a difference.

 

It seems to me that truth is always a subjective experience by definition and therefor will not be true for everyone at least while subject to the body/mind. Absolute truth cannot be found in duality. This physical creature must die. It can only subjectively experience God.

 

Just a view for you to consider concerning your comments.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[Wayseer]

Again - I think Davidk makes pertinient points.

 

There is a danger that Jesus does become a bystander in our pontificating. I guess that was why I set out to follow Crossan, Borg et al, for a couple of years as they searched for the historical Jesus - I wanted to identify the man from the myth.

 

Clearly a picture comes to me of Jesus which does not appear in the Gospels. This Jesus had to be both mentally and physically tough - he was also politically astute and socially savvy - and he knew which buttons to push. He was alarmed at the how His 'Church' treated its own - how it collaborated with the dominate political power of Rome - how playing politics was more important than listening to the cries of the oppressed. And the sheep had no leader.

 

Jesus, an itinerent peasant using the technology of the day, foot travel, a commanding presence, a 'new' teaching, holding out a 'promise', walking on water, would have made a good subject for a Youtube video clip. We could all have had a good laugh at the unfortunates who were 'emotionally' brainwashed and sucked into His movement (cult) - another nut case claiming to hold the power of God. Yet something more emerged from the work of this social and political radical - a something which we debate to this day - what did his work exactly mean.

 

In our sophisicated 21 st Century we may be in danger that while professing how wise we are we may yet be proved fools. Humility is still a great virtue. We distance the man from techings at our peril. We ditch Tradition in favour of Progression but there is a 'but' - no such much as an inconsistence as a dislocation. Truth may indeed be relative but, and here's the 'but', we have differentiate that Truth from its social context - its subjectivity. We need to identify the trees, not the forest.

 

Certainly there is a generalised questioning taking place concerning the teaching of the Church. The Church no longer may claim to be the sole repository of that Truth - itself being wrapped in a mantle of subjectivity. And on that score, PC can be just as subjective as anything else. We must be careful not to thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

 

The role is vacant - the job description awesome - the renumeration package doubtful - the outcome uncertain. But we try with the little we have.

[JosephM]

Again - I think Davidk makes pertinient points.

 

There is a danger that Jesus does become a bystander in our pontificating. I guess that was why I set out to follow Crossan, Borg et al, for a couple of years as they searched for the historical Jesus - I wanted to identify the man from the myth.

 

What danger is that you speak of?

 

Clearly a picture comes to me of Jesus which does not appear in the Gospels. This Jesus had to be both mentally and physically tough - he was also politically astute and socially savvy - and he knew which buttons to push. He was alarmed at the how His 'Church' treated its own - how it collaborated with the dominate political power of Rome - how playing politics was more important than listening to the cries of the oppressed. And the sheep had no leader.

And why is it necessary to understand the man? Politics? etc. ? It seems to me the annointing which you have received abides in you and you have no need that man should teach you. That is the spirit of truth.

 

Jesus, an itinerent peasant using the technology of the day, foot travel, a commanding presence, a 'new' teaching, holding out a 'promise', walking on water, would have made a good subject for a Youtube video clip. We could all have had a good laugh at the unfortunates who were 'emotionally' brainwashed and sucked into His movement (cult) - another nut case claiming to hold the power of God. Yet something more emerged from the work of this social and political radical - a something which we debate to this day - what did his work exactly mean.

 

Perhaps these are the trees which can cause one to lose sight of the forest.

 

In our sophisicated 21 st Century we may be in danger that while professing how wise we are we may yet be proved fools. Humility is still a great virtue. We distance the man from techings at our peril. We ditch Tradition in favour of Progression but there is a 'but' - no such much as an inconsistence as a dislocation. Truth may indeed be relative but, and here's the 'but', we have differentiate that Truth from its social context - its subjectivity. We need to identify the trees, not the forest.

Perhaps you have it backwards. What need is there to examine all the trees? And be lost in them? The message is so simple that EVEN A FOOL SHOULD NOT ERR.

 

Certainly there is a generalised questioning taking place concerning the teaching of the Church. The Church no longer may claim to be the sole repository of that Truth - itself being wrapped in a mantle of subjectivity. And on that score, PC can be just as subjective as anything else. We must be careful not to thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

 

The role is vacant - the job description awesome - the renumeration package doubtful - the outcome uncertain. But we try with the little we have.

 

It seems to me that the outcome is certain (not uncertain). God who is present everywhere is not known by intellectualizing or obtaining anything new but rather by tossing out the dirty bathwater so that that which is and has always been present can be exposed. In my view, Truth is self evident when that which is false is removed and not the other way around.

 

Just another view for one to consider.

 

Love,

Joseph

[minsocal]

Jesus really doesn't matter. His teachings are the only thing that matter, and then only whatever we decide them to be. It seems this is our progressive answer, McKenna.

 

Jesus, of course, does matter. It this were not the case, Buddah, Ghandi and MLK would not matter, to name a few. The life and teachings of Jesus set a standard that are a reference point, an anchor from which we can develop objective goals for our own lives. That, I believe is more progressive than your summation.

[davidk]

Jesus, of course, does matter. It this were not the case, Buddah, Ghandi and MLK would not matter, to name a few. The life and teachings of Jesus set a standard that are a reference point, an anchor from which we can develop objective goals for our own lives. That, I believe is more progressive than your summation.

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)? Jean Paul Sartre had stated that man needs an infinite reference point in order to find his own finite relevance. According to progressive arguement, none of the above fit the requirement of Sartre's long accepted philosophical declaration.

 

If Jesus was not an infinite being (the sufficient reference point), why would he be of any more significance than the others? Could the progressive christians then be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They could still use Jesus teachings as they use the teachings of the others now.

--

To Joseph,

If Truth is true, it is necessarily true for everyone. If we differ with the truth, OK, but then we make ourselves autonomous. How could the Spirit reveal truths that could also be untrue?

 

If Christ were not a man, why would Jesus say he was the Christ? If He were not truthful, how could he be revered?

--

Wayseer

Jesus was tough, lovingly. I'm not clear on the 'cult' comment, but the truth being tainted by society is certainly valid, with Jesus confronting it head on revealing truth as unchanging despite social contexts.

[soma]

Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” because it provides an effective answer to the many problems of modern life. This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God’s spiritual consciousness. Recognizing that we are all one in God’s consciousness gives us full protection in His unity by integrating our individual life with the world around us and providing a basic harmony and equilibrium in our hearts and minds.

 

Progressive Christians follow Jesus. his example, and his teachings of love. Christians who follow Jesus and choose to ignore or manipulate his teachings on love to gain real-estate in heaven or converts to gain numbers to prove they are right. we can say are not progressive. We can learn love from many sources.

[JosephM]

(snip)

If Jesus was not an infinite being (the sufficient reference point), why would he be of any more significance than the others? Could the progressive christians then be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They could still use Jesus teachings as they use the teachings of the others now.

--

To Joseph,

If Truth is true, it is necessarily true for everyone. If we differ with the truth, OK, but then we make ourselves autonomous. How could the Spirit reveal truths that could also be untrue?

 

If Christ were not a man, why would Jesus say he was the Christ? If He were not truthful, how could he be revered?

--

(snip)

 

David,

 

Labels are just labels and save nobody. Whether truth is spoken by Jesus, the Buddha, or you makes no difference with no disrespect meant.

 

Truth is self-evident when that which is untrue is removed. Truth is not learned, it is known. Learning about something that is true does not make it known. "You have the mind of Christ and know all things". It is already a given and only needs to be uncovered to realize. You become truth as you allow yourself to become transformed into the image of Christ your hope of Glory (God's presence)

 

Christ is a title for the annointing of God. Jesus was the Christ that was foretold to come. Look up the word in Greek. It is often used in error as is Buddha which means 'awakened one'. People use it to represent an individual person but it is not. Christ is being formed in you just as it was in Jesus. Jesus grew and waxed strong in God and in the knowledge of God. He said he didn't do his own works but that which he saw the Father do. You are to be transformed into that same image by the renewing of your mind and allowing the annointing to work in you. You can revere the man if you like but it is Christ that is your hope of Glory and not the man Jesus. Christ is not a man but rather a word derived from the Greek word Christos which comes from the word chriō through the idea of contact (with God in this case applied). It is definitly not Jesus's last name just as Doctor is a title used in a name. Just something to consider

 

Love,

Joseph

[minsocal]

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)? Jean Paul Sartre had stated that man needs an infinite reference point in order to find his own finite relevance. According to progressive arguement, none of the above fit the requirement of Sartre's long accepted philosophical declaration.

 

If Jesus was not an infinite being (the sufficient reference point), why would he be of any more significance than the others? Could the progressive christians then be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They could still use Jesus teachings as they use the teachings of the others now.

 

Unfortunately, Sartre and Aron are also joined in death: both have been disowned, ignored, or underrated by all the academic disciplines — philosophy, literature, sociology, politics — to which their voluminous works might be thought to have contributed. Silenced by death, Sartre and Aron are remembered more for the attitudes they brought to whatever they wrote about than for what they actually said.

http://www.sartre.org/Articles/Thevanishedintellectual.htm

 

Existence precedes and rules essence.

Being and Nothingness (1943)

 

Existentialism is nothing less than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing.

 

God is the solitude of men. There was only me: I alone decided to commit Evil; alone, I invented Good. I am the one who cheated, I am the one who performed miracles, I am the one accusing myself today, I alone can absolve myself; me, the man. - The Devil and the Good Lord, act 10, sc. 4, Gallimard (1951).

 

Sartre

 

http://www.sartre.org/quotes.htm

[minsocal]

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)?

 

In concert with rather than "instead of".

[minsocal]

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)? Jean Paul Sartre had stated that man needs an infinite reference point in order to find his own finite relevance. According to progressive arguement, none of the above fit the requirement of Sartre's long accepted philosophical declaration.

 

As to the last sentence, perhaps you are correct.

 

Addendum on Sartre:

 

Sartre, however, was comfortable as an atheist even if he had no fundament on which to plant his philosophical feet. To hell with that, he didn't need it.

...

Sartre was alien to the possibility that existentialism might thrive if it would just assume that indeed we do have a God who, no matter His or Her cosmic dimensions, (whether larger or smaller than we assume), embodies nonetheless some of our faults, our ambitions, our talents and our gloom.

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050606/mailer

 

Hmmmmmmm .... ?

[davidk]

Joseph,

I believe we agree, truth is true.

Christ, in the context of Scripture, is the Greek title given to the OT Messiah (another title). Particularly, in the context of Scripture, the titles Christ and Messiah are synonymous with only one person.

--

minsocal,

Thanks for responding.

I addressed Jesus as a reference point based upon your earlier comment:

 

"Jesus, of course, does matter. It this were not the case, Buddah, Ghandi and MLK would not matter, to name a few. The life and teachings of Jesus set a standard that are a reference point, an anchor from which we can develop objective goals for our own lives."

 

Have you a disagreement with Sartre's stated position, or that I used him?

Can one develop objective goals from a finite reference point?

If Jesus was not an infinite reference point, how would he be of any more significance than the others?

Couldn't the progressive christians be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They can still use 'Jesus teachings' as they currently use the teachings of the others. It is a position enitrely supported by your following post: "In concert with rather than "instead of"."

--

soma,

Eastern theology seems to be quite influencial in your doctrine.

 

In reference to: "This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God’s spiritual consciousness."

 

If we are in one consciousness with God, why would we have a need for Jesus to give us this commandment to love our neighbor? Why would there be a need for Jesus. There could not be "many problems of modern life".

[JosephM]

Joseph,

I believe we agree, truth is true.

Christ, in the context of Scripture, is the Greek title given to the OT Messiah (another title). Particularly, in the context of Scripture, the titles Christ and Messiah are synonymous with only one person.

--

(snip)

 

If we are in one consciousness with God, why would we have a need for Jesus to give us this commandment to love our neighbor? Why would there be a need for Jesus. There could not be "many problems of modern life".

 

Hi David,

 

On the contrary, It seems to me that Christ is not a person (as in living human). In the context of the NT Christ is perhaps not synonymous with only one person (Jesus). ie: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Romans 12:4-5 (KJV) It seems to me one must separate flesh from spirit. We are many in flesh but One in Spirit and this spirit is Christ not the man Jesus.

 

 

Christ is the light of consciousness. Christ is direct contact or connection with God. Christ is Life. Christ is Truth. Christ is Spirit and can't be limited to a single person in context even though the title is attributed to one man. This is a common habit even among Buddhists as they use the word Buddha even though they know it is a nature and not a man. Humans seem to be stuck in the flesh and continue to use these words as if it were a single person.

 

In answer to the second part, Jesus is just a name. Men are used to manifest truth to the world. Perhaps, sometimes we need to focus more on the message than the messenger to get it.

 

Just something to consider...

 

Love Joseph

[soma]

"If we are in one consciousness with God, why would we have a need for Jesus to give us this commandment to love our neighbor? Why would there be a need for Jesus. There could not be "many problems of modern life".

 

"One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all....." Ephesians 4:6 NRSV

 

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe_____and tremble!"

James 2:19 NKJV

 

"There is only one God."

EPHESIANS 4:6 NLT

 

"The lord our God, the Lord is one!"

Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV

 

Jesus said, "I and the Father are One." Jesus was one with the one consciousness of God. We aren't so we look to Jesus to guide us. He is pointing the way, but instead of following the path we look at his fingers pointing.

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

Have you a disagreement with Sartre's stated position, or that I used him?

 

Both. I'm simply following up on your claim. Here is what I find:

 

French atheistic novelist and philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, wrote: "The idea that a transcendent, creator God does not exist is fairly unique to this [20th]century. If there is no infinite, personal, creator-God who transcends His creation then there is no infinite reference point which can give meaning to the particulars of life. Man is alone, there is only the cosmos, and man's consciousness of himself."[16]

 

Sartre rejected the infinite reference point but Jesus claimed this infinite reference point as God. When I consider the Intelligent Design in the universe, history, archaeology, Old Testament and New Testament prophecy, the manuscript evidence that affirms the integrity of the Scriptures, the logical consistency of the Christian world and life view, and the lives changed through an encounter with the living Christ, I have not been able to find a serious contender – and certainly not in atheism.

 

I'll give you my sources only after you post yours. You made the original claim.

[davidk]

minsocal,

If there is no infinite, personal, creator-God who transcends His creation then there is no infinite reference point which can give meaning to the particulars of life.

Thank you, I needn't provide any additional quotes. That one serves quite nicely.

 

Perhaps you have a point in the way I presented the statement. It was nonetheless a profound statement made by Sartre, even though he at first refused to acknowledge God existed while he provided the rational to prove He did. Not able to sustain this unbelief, he did say later, "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." He denied God again against his own arguments just before he died, a brilliant but conflicted man.

--

Joseph,

So, in your estimation, if I understand you correctly, Jesus is not the Christ; and Jesus is just a name no more important than any one else's name. It just happens to be the one we use as a literary reference. It could just as well be 'Bob' or something else. So to answer McKenna would be to say there is no Jesus Christ? His incarnation, death, resurrection, etc. serves as no more purpose than mother goose?

--

Soma,

It was your post claiming we were all in one consciousness with God. I'm not sure how else to comment, other than your scriptural quotes are authentic.

"Recognizing that we are all one in God’s consciousness gives us full protection in His unity by integrating our individual life with the world around us and providing a basic harmony and equilibrium in our hearts and minds."- soma; post #35

[JosephM]

Joseph,

So, in your estimation, if I understand you correctly, Jesus is not the Christ; and Jesus is just a name no more important than any one else's name. It just happens to be the one we use as a literary reference. It could just as well be 'Bob' or something else. So to answer McKenna would be to say there is no Jesus Christ? His incarnation, death, resurrection, etc. serves as no more purpose than mother goose?

 

 

Hi David,

No I didn't say Jesus wasn't ' the Christ. If you will re-read the post perhaps you will find you are not reading carefully. I said "Jesus was the Christ that was foretold to come." and here you said " if I understand you correctly, Jesus is not the Christ" It seems to me obvious that you do not understand my post.

 

I said Christ was a title and not a name. IT IS NOT THE LINGUISTIC NAME OF "Jesus" that is important. IT IS RATHER THE AUTHORITY BEHIND THE NAME that is important. Yes they could have called him Bob, Joseph, Peter, Phillip, or any other linguistic name. The word name in the Greek signifies authority. The only power in the name of Jesus is the authority behind the name. That was and is the point I was making. And it seems you read in too much to come to the conclusion that we are implying that his incarnation serves no more purpose than mother goose. Jesus manifested Christ. To me that is important. You and I can do the same.

 

Love,

Joseph

[davidk]

"Jesus was the Christ that was foretold to come."

"Christ is not a person (as in living human). In the context of the NT Christ is perhaps not synonymous with only one person (Jesus). "

"... it is Christ that is your hope of Glory and not the man Jesus."

"Christ is not a man... "

 

Joseph,

 

Your position is confusing. Either Jesus is the Christ or not. Which do you claim?

 

Dk

[JosephM]

"Jesus was the Christ that was foretold to come."

"Christ is not a person (as in living human). In the context of the NT Christ is perhaps not synonymous with only one person (Jesus). "

"... it is Christ that is your hope of Glory and not the man Jesus."

"Christ is not a man... "

 

Joseph,

 

Your position is confusing. Either Jesus is the Christ or not. Which do you claim?

 

Dk

 

David,

 

Jesus manifested Christ and in that sense he was the Christ that was foretold to come. I do not find that confusing. Perhaps you are confused by believing Jesus = Christ and that is limited to one man. That is not true. Christ in you is your hope of glory. Christ is a title meaning annointed of God. Jesus was a man who grew and waxed strong in the knowledge of God from youth. He was transformed into the image of God as in a process. He manifested the annointing of God (Christ). We are to do the same.

 

Hope that helps,

Joseph

[davidk]

David,

 

Jesus manifested Christ and in that sense he was the Christ that was foretold to come. I do not find that confusing. Perhaps you are confused by believing Jesus = Christ and that is limited to one man. That is not true. Christ in you is your hope of glory. Christ is a title meaning annointed of God. Jesus was a man who grew and waxed strong in the knowledge of God from youth. He was transformed into the image of God as in a process. He manifested the annointing of God (Christ). We are to do the same.

 

Hope that helps,

Joseph

 

Yep, that clears up my understanding of your position: Jesus is not THE Christ and we can all become Christs, too.

--

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him, and he in God. And whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, is born of God; and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. By this we know that he who believes Jesus is the Christ has the witness of God in him, and that witness is that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has eternal life, he who does not have the Son doesn't have the life.

By the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. If it does not confess this, it is not from God, but the antichrist. The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself.

The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God brought forth concerning His Son.

 

I write this to you in order that you might believe that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and be in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

 

God's grace to you,

Dk

[JosephM]

Yep, that clears up my understanding of your position: Jesus is not THE Christ and we can all become Christs, too.

(snip)

God's grace to you,

Dk

 

Hi David,

 

No offence meant but it seems to me you jump to conclusions without understanding. No one ever said Christ was plural as in "Christs" as you have written. There is only one annointing of God (One Christ). We are many members but we are one in Christ not in the human man Jesus. Jesus said he and his father were One and prayed also that we would be One even as he was. (John 17:22) This is obviously a mystery to you. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. Jesus was a flesh and blood man that manifested Christ (God's spirit) . One can only see this if God reveals it to one directly as flesh and blood cannot reveal this. I have no problem with the other quotations you have listed when read in the Greek with the discerning of the spirit. Perhaps this may help somewhat.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[davidk]

Hi David,

 

No offence meant but it seems to me you jump to conclusions without understanding. No one ever said Christ was plural as in "Christs" as you have written. There is only one annointing of God (One Christ). We are many members but we are one in Christ not in the human man Jesus. Jesus said he and his father were One and prayed also that we would be One even as he was. (John 17:22) This is obviously a mystery to you. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. Jesus was a flesh and blood man that manifested Christ (God's spirit) . One can only see this if God reveals it to one directly as flesh and blood cannot reveal this. I have no problem with the other quotations you have listed when read in the Greek with the discerning of the spirit. Perhaps this may help somewhat.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Joseph,

Thanks for hanging in there with me. The plural was a typo.

-

The notion that Jesus and Christ being the same person is explicitly confirmed by what is said in the New Testament, whether by Jesus himself or witnesses to Him.

 

The being one with the Father does not mean one person, but one in essence, power, quality, action, design, and agreement.

Christs prayer for His disciples to become one is in the same manner, not as one person but individuals united in essence, faith, action, etc.

 

It is uniform in the NT that Jesus Christ, in regard to the Godhead, is equal to the Father, but in regard to His manhood, inferior. He was wholly God and wholly man. God was made manifest in Jesus, which is what made Him the Christ. As the Messiah, He was delegated by the Father to deliver such doctrine and instruction as were in keeping with His mission.

 

As far as the revealing by the Spirit of God is concerned, Peter was the recipient of that very thing when he answered Jesus saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

-