Why Is There Belief in the Divinity of Jesus?

Originally posted by knightmeister
....Jesus didn't specifically say he was the Son of God ....

Actually he did : John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

And angel Gabriel said it in Luke 1:35 ....The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Originally posted by vistesd
I suspect you're reading John 14 at a deeper level than I have...

I consider that a gracious complement. Thankyou. sometimes I am too lazy to look up some of your more esoteric theological terms knowing that your theological vocabulary is extensive.

By His sheer mercy, I have been helped to see a little deeper into John 14.

But if you recall Jesus said that in His Father's house were MANY abodes. And if it were not so He would have told us. Then He follows this by saying that He goes away to prepare as place for His disciples that where He is there they also may be.

The long and short of it is this - Jesus went to the cross and died a redemptive death in order to prepare a place for us in the Father's house. The Father's house is Himself as the embodiment of God. The preparation of His believers to be the MANY abodes in the Father's house means that He has made a way for the redeemed to enter into that same reality of God in man and man in God which He Himself enjoyed.

"If it were not so, I would have told you." We too, through His redemptive death on the cross and His resurrection from the dead, has prepared a standing in God the Father for the redeemed sinner.

Have I said this before? The singular noun abode for the plural of the same word is found in verse 23. Please compare:

"In My Father's house are many abodes; if it were not so I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you to Myself, so that where I am you also may be." (John 14:2,3)

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone ;oves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

The Father and the Son as the Holy Spirit will come to the lover of Jesus who has been redeemed by His atoning death. The Divine "We" - the Triune God, will make an abode with that one. This means that Christ will come into that man and with Him bring the entire Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit into that man.

Then Jesus is not the only singular abode in the house of the Father. We too who trust in His preparation of a place for us in God through His redemptive death and resurrection, become the many abodes within which God lives in man and man in God.

This chapter is not about Jesus going to heaven fix up mansions in heaven to bring people into heaven. It is about Jesus going to the cross to make a standing in God for the forgiven and redeemed sinner.

Do you understand me so far?

This is not about man being born naturally into the world with God in him. This is about God dispensing Himself into man after man has been redeemed through the death of Christ on the cross. Believing and loving the crucified and resurrected Redeeming God-Man Jesus, is what brings about the union of God and man.

Do you understand me this far?

We have to receive what Christ the Son of God has done to prepare a way for us to get into the realm and sphere of the living God.

So if the Bible is the thing from which you gain your faith in God and Jesus, from where do you get your faith in the Bible? (I am not intending to be rude here, I am just curious as I don't think I really understand.)[/b]

Many people in this thread, though well meaning, seem to have a misconception about faith. True, biblical faith should be based on evidence, since the Bible give lots of it.
Where should our faith in the Bible come from? Here's my reasoning:
If the Bible is the true Word of the true God we should believe it, but surely if God is so smart He would have given some evidence in the Bible that He actually inspired it (like a person signing a letter to authenicate it). One of the things only God can do is tell the future, since He is all-knowing. So if the Bible really does contain fulfilled prophecies it would be proven to be the genuine Word of God.
One example of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible: Psalm 22
16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.
This prophecy was made and recorded by King David approx. 1000 BC, hundreds of years before the execution method of crucifixion was even invented, and was fulfilled to the letter in the life of Christ. For those who say it was written after the crucifixion, which is tempting to say since it is so accurately fulfilled, there is the extra evidence of the entire Old Testament, including Ps 22, being translated into Greek (the Septaugint) in about 200 BC.

This is only one of dozens of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. No other book contains such credible, fulfilled prophecies. Surely this is good evidence that would convince any honest seeker of truth.

Originally posted by Henry23
Many people in this thread, though well meaning, seem to have a misconception about faith. True, biblical faith should be based on evidence, since the Bible give lots of it.
Where should our faith in the Bible come from? Here's my reasoning:
If the Bible is the true Word of the true God we should believe it, but surely if God is so smart He would have give ...[text shortened]... filled prophecies. Surely this is good evidence that would convince any honest seeker of truth.

And why were they fulfilled. Maybe a whole lot of idiots who read the Bible made it cum true. Ever think of that instead being the "super-powers" of GOD.

Originally posted by WWindmill
Ever consider that a lot of bad things that happen in the world are because of you Christian idiots who obsess on making your Jesus and your views of the Bible take on some form of real-time reality.

Nothing compared to all the good the church does.

Originally posted by josephw
Nothing compared to all the good the church does.

What is the good? Feed a couple of beggars? Give an africa child false hope through lunch and a free book?

You should see what happened when one of your followers goes out on a killing spree trying to show just how amazing his Jesus is..

Originally posted by jaywill
I consider that a gracious complement. Thankyou. sometimes I am too lazy to look up some of your more esoteric theological terms knowing that your theological vocabulary is extensive.

By His sheer mercy, I have been helped to see a little deeper into John 14.

But if you recall Jesus said that in His Father's house were MANY abodes. And if it were not s done to prepare a way for us to get into the realm and sphere of the living God.

Well, that is deeper...

I want just to see what happens if I add a couple of strings to the weaving here. First, though, although I spent most of my life as a Lutheran, I let go of his doctrine of sola scriptura some years ago as I studied Eastern Orthodoxy and the early post-apostolic church. So I now tend to look at the Biblical texts sometimes through the lens of folks such as Gregory of Nyssa, and the Orthodox tradition generally (though there are areas where I would part company and still find myself with Protestant views).

Now, I would say that God is the one in which/whom* everything is and has its being. Of course, this is part and parcel of my own non-dualist position generally. However, it also has a place (no pun intended) in Jewish theology where the Hebrew word makom (“Place”: so I guess I’ll go with the pun) is sometimes seen as a term for God, YHVH, pretty literally the one that is. It is also suggested in Acts 17:28. Further, John 1:3 seems to make clear that everything that has come into being (Greek: egeneto, literally begotten, or engendered) has come into being through (dia) the divine Logos, which is God, from the beginning. [What some people call a “high Christology”, I might call a “Logos Christology”—I recall us being close on Christology, though I think you likely emphasize the Jesus/humanity side more than I, just as a matter of emphasis as opposed to a real difference.]

Basically, this means that I would agree with the Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement when he says (from recall here): “The world is a vast incarnation, which the fall of humanity tries to contradict.” [Orthodox have a different understanding of the “fall” as well; I personally think that is an allegory about the existential condition of humanity that can be—and may be intended to be—read in a number of possible ways.] This, of course, agrees with my non-dualist views as well. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich once cited a pre-trinitarian (by which I think he meant pre-personalized) formula: God as ground-of-being, power-of-being and being-itself (I would say being-manifest)—which becomes father, spirit and logos/son.

Now people like Nyssa and Oliver Clement and Tillich are likely not non-dualists, but I do think they push the panentheistic envelope. That is a position that I have not sufficiently explored.

This all lifts out one other strand: that of illusion as the root of hamartia (literally “missing the mark”, human error, “sin”, but not necessarily human wickedness or even just moral error). This can also be found in Orthodoxy (capital “O” again); and is also, of course the root of human distress in Vedanta and Buddhism.

With all those strands briefly noted, I would have to say minimally that everything has its “abode”** in God as ground-of-being, just as God’s chosen abode (both as pneuma/spirit and as logos?) is in everything. That is at least panentheism (God in everything and everything in God; different panentheists emphasize those two differently).

As you know, I refuse to translate pisteo as “believe”. I’m not at all sure that you use that word “believe” (or “believers” ) in the conventional sense. I would say that one either realizes that one is a manifestation (incarnation) of the divine Logos, or not. Again, this is my eastern bent.

If one realizes that, then one realizes one’s “abodeness”, and God’s “abodeness” within. “God’s kingdom basileia is within/inside you.”*** That is where one must “enter” into it.

God is the divine “I-am”. Jesus’ unique incarnational meaning is as ikon of the indwelling “I-am” in all of humanity. That is why he is called Christ/son/logos.**** I have sometimes said that Jesus is the Christ, but the Christ is not exclusively Jesus. (The Greek orthodox stress that the word sometimes translated as “only-begotten” means “unique”, not exclusive.

Now I think you can see the reason for my Nyssa quote (though I likely push the matter further than he did), and my questions to PinkFloyd.

________________________________

I used to think that the one great divide between religions was dualism versus non-dualism. Now I think there is another one, which I’ll call for the moment “formalism” versus “nonformalism”.+ Formalists tend to view their particular expression as the only (exclusive) expression of the truth, or reality: or the whole truth, or the only salvific expression, etc. A nonformalist sees the various religious forms as all trying to point to the same underlying reality—which is prior to everything that has been/can be said about it. A nonformalist may herself find one better than another (both subjectively and objectively), but does not thereby exclude the others en toto. A nonformalist may find fault with some forms/expressions more than others.

As a nonformalist, I think that all religious language/symbolism is either properly iconographic or becomes broadly idolatrous. I think that formalism (as I am using the word here) tends toward idolatry, intentionally or not—I stress that tends toward because I am not certain where the line is crossed; I certainly do not think that everyone who adheres to a particular religious form is an idolater! Perhaps I should say tends toward an idolatrous mode of thinking. We all need to guard against that, and I think you too try to be very careful about it.++ There are other dangers for the nonformalist...

As a nonformalist I see the various religious understandings as a bit like different-colored streams of the one clear light, refracted through the prism of human consciousness, cultural context, and the like. I see Jesus as the Christ as pointing (both in his message and in his person) along one stream back to the source, from which all the streams are manifest/incarnated. [The metaphor is limited; however, might the logos be the prism?]

His language, his symbolism, his understanding of himself as symbol/ikon (sacrament?) are formal. Many (most?) of his “I-am” statements are pointing (via his own ikonic person) to the ultimate “I-am” nature. [The degree to which that personalism with regard to the divine ground is symbolic, and the degree to which it ought to be taken as real, is another question that I leave open here.] That does not mean that he thought his own particular person to be the exclusive such ikon, recognition of which exclusivity is necessary for salvation. Many clearly think that he did; they are Christian formalists. The scriptural arguments fill many pages.

Once we move into the sort of deeper exegesis that you’re doing here, it might be only the issues of formalist/nonformalist that divide us. It is where I get concerned with words like “believer” and “church” (although I assumed you meant that latter term in the mystic sense).

_______________________________

I am aware that this already overlong post only scratches the surface (and that barely). I’ll leave by thanking you for your exegesis, which I still need to ponder further. You stressed the crucifixion, for example, and I have not done any justice to your words on that—I’ll just say that I would also see it as ikonic (or iconographic).

Note: I do think that your reference to the “divine We” is also a deep symbol, pointing not only to the nature of God as agape, but also to our own nature—it really goes to the deepest mystical ground. I see it as a proper dialectical synthesis from Martin Buber’s “I-Thou” on the one hand, and undifferentiated mystical union on the other. I once wrote a “sermon” on it for the sermon contest on here...

________________________________

* I know you’ll choose the “whom” there, but that need not be an argument here. 🙂

** Abode is probably the better term; I do still like the more poetic KJV “mansion” though.

*** I am aware that entos can also be translated as “among” or “in the midst of”, but I don’t prefer that translation (although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

**** This is analogous to (not the same as!) the Buddha’s being called the tathagata: the “thus come one”—i.e., representative of the fundamental tathata (which might be akin to “logos” ).

+ There may also be a divide between supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism, but God as ground-of-being certainly need not be supernatural—but rather the ultimate natural ground of all nature. Nyssa had a somewhat complex view of this; I’ve only seem one exposition on it. Twhitehead argued cogently for the incoherence of any supernatural category as such; I agree, but here it is only necessary to point out that it is an unnecessary category for Christian theology.

++ My extreme concern for idolatrous expressions of the ultimately ineffable informs all of my religious philosophy, and likely is partly responsible for some of these cumbersome posts! (I address from a somewhat different, linguistic, angle in my posts to Epi on the “Online Apologetic” thread.)

Originally posted by Scriabin
Somehow all this got off track.

Sure did. In light of my contributions to that, Ill just say that I do not admit the supernatural category into any of my thinking. Twhitehead convinced me that it only leads to incoherencies, and it is an unnecessary encumbrance to religious discourse.

Similarly, if I use the word "mysticism", I mean neither the supernatural nor the occult. You have enough knowledge of the eastern religions, I think to understand the sort of "technical" sense in which I might use that term.

I am a non-supernaturalist non-dualist. For simplicity, I tell people that if they think "Zen", they won't be far off the mark. I called myself a Zen Buddhist for a while, but have now dropped that. I think that my ease of movement among different religious paradigms and language sometimes confuses people (I try not to let it confuse me!). If you've ever read Fritjoff Schuon's The Trancendant Unity of Religions, you'll understand my comments about formalism versus nonformalism (my provisional terms, not his; he uses "exoteric" and "esoteric", but the latter word can sometimes be confusing).

Because of my non-dualism, I do not call myself a theist, since that is usually taken as a dualistic term. However, like the Kashmiri Shaivites, and folks like Meister Eckhart, I am willing to use theistic language for the ineffable ground (for which no language is adequate).

Originally posted by WWindmill
And why were they fulfilled. Maybe a whole lot of idiots who read the Bible made it cum true. Ever think of that instead being the "super-powers" of GOD.

I suppose you're refering by 'idiots' to the Jewish people in the time of Jesus who in your opinion contrived to make these prophecies come true. Yes, I have considered that. I've measured that possibility against the historic evidence and found it wanting. Neither Jesus nor his followers had control over such things as where He was born (according to prophecy it had to be Bethlehem - Mic 5:2), who his ancesters were (according to prophecy he would be from the tribe of Judah and from King David's house - Gen 49:10), how he died (through crucifixion - Ps 22:16-18, etc.), where He was buried (in a rich mans tomb - Is 53:9), or what His enemies would say to him (Ps 22:7-8).

So based on the evidence, and not just speculation (which you seem to favour), Jesus did supernaturally fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Bible.

If you're really interested in the truth, then go and make an honest assessment of what I say. The truth can be tested.

Originally posted by Henry23
I suppose you're refering by 'idiots' to the Jewish people in the time of Jesus who in your opinion contrived to make these prophecies come true. Yes, I have considered that. I've measured that possibility against the historic evidence and found it wanting. Neither Jesus nor his followers had control over such things as where He was born (according to prophe ...[text shortened]... n the truth, then go and make an honest assessment of what I say. The truth can be tested.

I dont believe you. Society was built up to the big occassion and then his life was already written and Jesus walked in knowingly to fulfill his chosen path.. to die for no reason.

Originally posted by WWindmill
I dont believe you. Society was built up to the big occassion and then his life was already written and Jesus walked in knowingly to fulfill his chosen path.. to die for no reason.

Before I answer your objection let me first say this: I don't think Christians are 'superior' and I don't want to impose Christianity on anyone; I'm just interesteding the truth and I respect anyone else who honestly seeks it. Maybe you should put your preconceived ideas and biases against Christianity aside for a momnent and just consider the evidence.

I'm sorry, but your objection the 'sociaty was biutl up to the big occassion' and the Jesus fulfilled the prophecies only because He knew about them is both unlogical and impossible. As I have previously mentioned, there were many aspects of these prophecies that neither nor anyone else could control. It is just not logically possible that Jesus and His sociaty could have contrived to fulfill these prophecies, and if you think logically and honestly you'll have to admit that.

If you can't admit this then maybe it's because you're allowing your negative biases to cloud your judgement. Or maybe you've already made up your mind and don't want to be confused with the facts (I don't say this to be rude, but as humans we often do these things).

Originally posted by Henry23
Before I answer your objection let me first say this: I don't think Christians are 'superior' and I don't want to impose Christianity on anyone; I'm just interesteding the truth and I respect anyone else who honestly seeks it. Maybe you should put your preconceived ideas and biases against Christianity aside for a momnent and just consider the evidence.

I ...[text shortened]... the facts (I don't say this to be rude, but as humans we often do these things).

It isnt illogical or impossible.