If Jesus is god???!!!

by El_Guapo 54 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  An honest question, Is there any difference in the nature of "God" and the nature of "a god"??

  A good question, yes.

  First it should be noted that, biblically, the Judeo-Christians religions accept that there are "gods" and not just GOD.

  There is only ONE supreme creator God, yes, but there are also other beings that are called "gods" and worshipped as such, these are false gods according to the bible.

  Some view them as fallen angels passing themselves off as gods or angels that have been misunderstood as gods as their "stories" have been told down through the ages.

  The issue of nature is this:

  What is begotten of soemthing has the same nature as that something BUT what is created does NOT.

  Christ being begotten of The Father, has the same nature as The Father BUT all other "gods" were created by God so they do NOT have the same nature, though they MAY reflect certain qualities ( in a far lesser state of being) of God.
• 

  wolfman85

  Thanks PS for your answer. I have a lot to process with this answer.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Band, I didn't go back through the whole thread, but where was I referring to the Gnostics incorrectly? What did I say that was completely against academic understanding of that movement?

  As far as the creeds go, I was only bringing this creed up to show that the idea regarding Jesus nature was not a late Christian invention. Reading the older church fathers also shows that they had a very clear idea of what the nature of God was. The WT has taught us that the Trinity was not deveolped until the Nicean creed.

  My only point here was that the creeds were set up to battle ideas that they believed to be false coming into the church. They were not meant to flesh out a doctrine, but to uphold a doctrine that they believed to be scriptural, and yet attacked by others. So a creed was written to state very clearly what they believed, in the face of this opposition.
• 

  Christ Alone

  has anybody answered the question why Jesus the Christ is called the son of MAN when Joseph was not involved? why marys' geneology is ended in a male ancestor? MAN like in mankind?

  The common understanding is that "Son of God" implies Jesus' deity, and that "Son of Man" implies his humanity.

  Yes, Jesus was a son of a human being, Mary. Calling Jesus "Son of Man" is not a reference to Joseph at all. It just states the understanding that Jesus is both divine and human - two nature, one person. Even JWs would agree to a point. They will say that Jesus was both angel and human. Sound like a leaning towards the Trinity...huh?

  But the more important insight is that the term "Son of Man" doesn't merely just align him with humanity. It's a direct reference to Daniel 7, where it describes the Son of Man as a very exalted figure, not just a human figure.

  If you do a study of the term "Son of Man" in the Gospels, you'll see that Jesus referred to Himsels as "Son of Man" far more often than He did "Son of God".

  It was an interesting thing for Him to do. On the surface "Son of Man" is just an ordinary phrase for "human being". He was born a human. There wouldn't necessarily be any offense to this term. I am a son of man just as all of you are. But to the Jewish leaders, when they heard "Son of Man" they immediately would have thought of Daniel 7. They would have seen that by Jesus using this title, he was claiming to be a fulfillment of OT prophecy. The Jews also knew (correctly) that any mention of "Son of" was a reference to ones nature. That is why when Jesus said He was the Son of God, the Jews (correctly) said that He was therefore making Himself equal to God. My sons nature is equal to that of mine. I'm his head, but our nature is the same. Jesus nature is equal to that of the Father. The Father is His head, but their nature is the same. ETERNAL.

  Jesus was subtle in that he was always opening his identity to those that wanted to see it, but he wasn't opening it so blatantly that everone would come and make Him king. He didn't just openly say, "I am the Messiah! I am the King of the World. Come and acknowledge me as King".

  The phrase "Son of Man" was a genious move of Jesus to show WHO He was, but at the same time draw single individuals that were open to truth to ask Him further about His identity.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I am not current with Son of Man studies. All I could do is summarize what I recall. Sorry but it is from college courses and reading historical Jesus books. FAther, son, --these descriptions occur in the OT for illustrious prophets and kings of Israel. Jewish messianic hope was complex. I believe "son of man" is referenced in Isaiah and since the Hebrew scriptures were not canonized may have been available in other writings. Wikipedia should have a general discussion.

  If Jesus claimed to be the son of man, he would have claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus did make references to the son of man. As with much else, Jesus is not clear. He never stated, "I am the son of man." When he referenced the "son of man," it is possible he was referring to himself but a plain reading appears to show that he is referring to another actor, not himself.

  I don't diiscuss "son of man" in my everyday life. Pagels asserted this was the real test of whether he had Messianic consciousness. Many believe the historical Jesus had no idea he was the Messiah. Any scripture we have is the later church creating theology concerning Jesus. As with Jesus' trial, son of man is writing about extensively. Any decent historical Jesus book will discuss it.

  I was just a student who found the subject enough to continue reading about it from time to time. A prof in the field would wince at my explanation. Since so much of this forum revolves around Christology, I will pull my texts out and report in more detail. The last book I read on the subect was Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus.

  This area interests me b/c it is harder than most topics. Hence, Berrigan's comments. I don't recall "son of man" from Isaiah or the gospels. It showed me that we make assumptions about Jesus and choose scriptures that bolster our preexisting view. I have no personal view of the "son of man" tradition or the scholarship. It is debated within seminary circles. For instance, Jesus refers to his Father, but he also states that God is the father of all humans. I do not know.