Did Jesus Become A God Or Was He Always A God?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Technically he did respond. See my post directly above yours.

[Doctor Steuss]

Well, that's real caring of you. I ask you question, thinking that maybe you would care enough yourself to answer it, and what do you tell me to do? Go to Helen Hunt.

My different Jesus told me to do it.

[Doctor Steuss]

Take note, Dr. Steuss!

It looks like we have another applicant for the SSCE. Please prepare a suitable initiation ritual.

All the Best!

Captain P. P.

I'll see what I can draft up. Since our friends over at CC don't like to allow us to register, we may have to find another board.

Or maybe some cabbage.

Doctor Mohel

PS.

We may need to wait until the Tyler returns from his military training.

[palgrave]

I have read it. God is not a respecter of persons in the sense that He doesn't respect who or what you are in your station in life. In other words, you might be the President of the United States, yet that status will not gain you brownie points with God.

No, what matters with God in becoming a Christian is what the person does with His Son. And if a person has not heard anything, that does not absolve him of his guilt as as sinner, since all have sinned, bar none. Hence, God is always fair and just, and not a respecter of persons, and will grant Chi the rice farmer exactly what he deserves, as He grants all unrepentant sinners what they deserve: a one-way ticket to hell. Now, some my bristle over such a notion, but God does not owe anyone anything, and for Him to do such is once again fair and just, and no one who knows what God has revealed on the matter will question it.

Your God seems pretty unjust and unmerciful. Where do I sign up???!!!

[Zakuska]

That's funny, Isaiah seems to say that our righteous deeds are like dirty rags (in other words not worthy a hill of beans)...

Isaiah 64:6

For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

We are to do works as a RESULT of salvation, not TOWARDS our salvation- big difference.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

Who had a better knowledge of salvation? Isaiah or Peter who walked and talked with the living breathing Lord?

[myleague]

When does a tadpole become a frog, or a caterpillar a butterfly? There are distinct life events that happen to change the outside appearance of either animal, assuming they have some sort of soul, has their soul changed in their metamorphosis. We are gods in embryo; death to our physical bodies will not limit our souls potential, only spiritual death will cut us off from reaching our full potential of becoming a god.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Technically he did respond. See my post directly above yours.

I suppose your right. I guess we wont get any indepth responces here. what was I thinking?

[consiglieri]

Your God seems pretty unjust and unmerciful. Where do I sign up???!!!

PaulD's God also goes by Cthulhu.

Note to self: It's best not to piss him off.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'll see what I can draft up. Since our friends over at CC don't like to allow us to register, we may have to find another board.

Or maybe some cabbage.

Doctor Mohel

PS.

We may need to wait until the Tyler returns from his military training.

Funny that, because I have the distinct impression PaulD has matriculated from the board that shall not be named.

I think he's having a harder time making converts to his dogmatic theology in this universe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Who had a better knowledge of salvation? Isaiah or Peter who walked and talked with the living breathing Lord?

PaulD, obviously.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Elementary, my dear Zakuska.")

I suppose your right. I guess we wont get any indepth responces here. what was I thinking?

The problem with in depth responses in this particular end of the theology pool is that the deeper you go, the shallower the water.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

When does a tadpole become a frog, or a caterpillar a butterfly?...

There are at least four Jesus-transforming events spoken of in the gospels:

(1) The Baptism: "You are my son; today I have begotten you."

(2) The Transfiguration: "his raiment became shining, exceeding white"

(3) The Resurrection: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father"

(4) The Ascension: (no specific description given)

To these events might be added his circumcision, his first prayer, his first reading of the

Hebrew scriptures, his first pondering of Isaiah's prophecies, his first miracle, etc. etc.

Obviously the gospel narratives picture a changing, transforming Jesus -- Only John's Gospel

presents him as the utterly holy, pre-existent Logos. In other words, there is a "different Jesus"

depicted on practically every page of the New Testament -- until we get to the ultra-high

Christology of the Book of Revelation.

When does a little boy studying his Hebrew lessons in Nazareth become God the Son?

According to Jewish theology, never.

According to Mormon theology, a little at a time, over billions of years.

According to the theology articulated by Paul_D, ever was and shall be.

UD

[consiglieri]

When does a little boy studying his Hebrew lessons in Nazareth become God the Son?

According to Jewish theology, never.

According to Mormon theology, a little at a time, over billions of years.

According to the theology articulated by Paul_D, ever was and shall be.

UD

Or possibly he might proclaim that he is a son of God, as is everybody who was present at and received their commission in the grand council in heaven?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[T-Shirt]

Paul, it is not helpful for you to talk down to people. You seem like a bright guy, but I promise you, there are plenty of bright folks here, as well. This debate will move along much more smoothly if you will acknowledge this fact. We don't have to agree on every point in order to have a civil debate. Now, on to your comment.

If you don't think that John is making a "very strong case" for the deity of Jesus, then pray tell just what was John talking about?

I think you may have misread my question. I did not question Christ's deity. I agree with you that John 1 clearly mentions the deity of Jesus at the time before the creation. My question was about what scriptural proof texts you prefer that, to you, clearly indicate that Christ has always been God.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

[consiglieri]

It appears our new born again friends have moved on to happier hunting grounds.

If their absence continues unabated, I will have to score this down in my little black book as a victory for the different Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[myleague]

Only difference between the rest of us and Jesus is his physical birth, we have the potential as he did. We may be half deity, yet we are in the fetus stages of becoming one.

I think Jesus, like us have always had the potential to be a god. Just like the tadpole has the potential to be a frog. Difference is it isn't our physical metamorphosis that determines whether or not we become a god but our spiritual. We can physically die prematurely and our soul isn't damned, but if we die spiritually premature we fall short of the mark of becoming a god. Jesus was half part physically a god and 100 parts spirit potential of being a god. We donâ??t have the physical genetics that he had but we do have the spiritual genetics, which is the most important part.

[Uncle Dale]

Or possibly he might proclaim that he is a son of God, as is everybody who was present at

and received their commission in the grand council in heaven?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Wasn't there, so I don't know.

I do know that Jesus typically made reference to the "son of man" phraseology found in the

Book of Daniel, and applied it to himself. I find it interesting that he did not call himself the

"Son of God," in the gospel narratives.

The "son of man" term is generally viewed by scholars as an icon for the entire covenant people.

In our modern terminology, we might say "the church." So, if that be a valid interpretation, Jesus

was already making use of a corporate "body of Christ" precept, long before Paul taught it.

The "son of man" phraseology also puts Jesus in the position of embodying or representing all

of faithful Israel in one person -- himself. For those who see the atonement in terms of a

substitute-sacrifice, the "son of man" precept is an ideal beginning point --- as is the "suffering

servant" terminology of Isaiah (which scholars also identify as a corporate symbol).

Whatever we may say about Jesus' divinity, it appears to me that he was more interested in

showing us his humanity -- and in terms of representing/embodying us all in his incarnation.

Food for thought...

UD

[Lightbearer]

Technically he did respond. See my post directly above yours.

Oops sorry, I missed that. Thanks

[consiglieri]

The "son of man" phraseology also puts Jesus in the position of embodying or representing all

of faithful Israel in one person -- himself. For those who see the atonement in terms of a

substitute-sacrifice, the "son of man" precept is an ideal beginning point --- as is the "suffering

servant" terminology of Isaiah (which scholars also identify as a corporate symbol).

Food for thought...

UD

Food for thought, indeed. It sort of reminds me of Paul in Galatians arguing that the "seed of Abraham" to whom the promise was made was not plural, but singular, and manifest in the singular individuality of Jesus Christ; that is only through "putting on Christ" through baptism that we become one with him and hence are able to access the Abrahamic promise.

What d'ya think?

Geez! It's no wonder the Jews hated Paul so much!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

Food for thought, indeed. It sort of reminds me of Paul in Galatians arguing that the "seed of Abraham" to whom the promise was made was not plural, but singular, and manifest in the singular individuality of Jesus Christ; that is only through "putting on Christ" through baptism that we become one with him and hence are able to access the Abrahamic promise.

What d'ya think?

My RLDS 3-in-1 was getting a bit too heavy to lug about, so I tore out all the pages between

Romans and Hebrews.

Solved several problems all at once.

UD

[consiglieri]

My RLDS 3-in-1 was getting a bit too heavy to lug about, so I tore out all the pages between

Romans and Hebrews.

Solved several problems all at once.

UD

As long as you still have James, you should be in good shape!

[Zakuska]

Wasn't there, so I don't know.

I do know that Jesus typically made reference to the "son of man" phraseology found in the

Book of Daniel, and applied it to himself. I find it interesting that he did not call himself the

"Son of God," in the gospel narratives.

The "son of man" term is generally viewed by scholars as an icon for the entire covenant people.

In our modern terminology, we might say "the church." So, if that be a valid interpretation, Jesus

was already making use of a corporate "body of Christ" precept, long before Paul taught it.

The "son of man" phraseology also puts Jesus in the position of embodying or representing all

of faithful Israel in one person -- himself. For those who see the atonement in terms of a

substitute-sacrifice, the "son of man" precept is an ideal beginning point --- as is the "suffering

servant" terminology of Isaiah (which scholars also identify as a corporate symbol).

Whatever we may say about Jesus' divinity, it appears to me that he was more interested in

showing us his humanity -- and in terms of representing/embodying us all in his incarnation.

Food for thought...

UD

What about the Matthew quote I provided... where Peter calls him the Christ... the Son of the living God?

[consiglieri]

Where have all the Born Agains gone?

Long time passing.

When will they ever learn?

When will they ever learn?

[Uncle Dale]

What about the Matthew quote I provided... where Peter calls him the Christ...

the Son of the living God?

Was that what Peter really said that day?

Looking at the story as related in the Gospel according to Mark and in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,

I find a different set of details for that event. In fact, those different details appear to show that Jesus

rebuked Peter in exactly the same language he used to rebuke demons -- who also openly professed

his messiahship.

My best guess is that "Peter's good confession" is either a detached fragment of the old oral tradition,

picked up and incorporated into the story by Matthew -- or else it is a creation of Matthew. Either way,

I do not depend upon that particular Matthean pericope as defining the Christology.

It is interesting -- it should not be forgotten -- but it should be considered in the context of all the other

messianic references in the Christian Bible. IMHO

UD

[Tsuzuki]

Okay, so what was your question again?

In the language of Lao Tzu, would you say that creator is the Tao, while creature is the Ten Thousand Things?

[Uncle Dale]

In the language of Lao Tzu, would you say that creator is the Tao, while creature is the

Ten Thousand Things?

The Tao that is a but a creator is not the Tao.

UD

[Tsuzuki]

The Tao that is a but a creator is not the Tao.

UD

Are you saying that the distinction between creature and creator is an artificial distinction in light of the Tao?