Jump to content

Jesus was "God in Man"


Calm

Recommended Posts

In another thread, a poster was describing the internal nature or relationship between the Father and Christ as "God in Man", a phrase I had heard being applied to mankind (usually something along the lines of godly qualities such as love and compassion in man being divine qualities that God has given us or what Genesis is referring to in "let us make man in our own image"), but not in my recall being applied to Jesus, at least not in the way that poster was doing so.

When asked for further clairification, the poster responded with this:

I believe that when Jesus Christ was on earth, God the father was on earth, so they were one and the same.

I am wondering if anyone else (thews is of course would be best to give his POV including how he developed it which I am very interested in) believes this or is aware of the belief and what its roots and justifications are and how it deals with verses such as Jesus' baptism where the Spirit descended from the heavens and the voice of the Father was also heard from heaven (I am assuming the belief is that Jesus was the Spirit as well) in Matt 3.

It sounds (though I admit since this is all I've heard about it that my confusion on this is extreme so I could be way off base) like a combination of modalism and Trinitarism, trying to avoid the major issue of both---in the first the heresy judgment and in the second the polytheism criticism).

PS: I did a quick google and saw that none dealt with the issue in the way it was being described...or at least I couldn't tell that they did, so am coming to this clean so to speak. If someone just wants to post a link to a site that explains this POV, I would appreciate that greatly.

Link to comment

food for thought...

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/father.htm

There is only one God. This is the emphatic teaching of the Old Testament. The Jews were the people who knew their God if anyone did (John 4:22), and they had no concept of persons within the Godhead. In the book of Isaiah God makes some very strong statements which I believe do not allow for a Trinitarian understanding. In Isaiah 44:6&8 God makes the statement, "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Could scripture be any plainer than this? In verse 24 he states, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone." If language means anything then "by Myself" and "alone" mean that there was no other person present. If God is not claiming that he is absolutely one here, then what stronger language would one suggest to convey this? Why would God be so emphatic about oneness, if in reality he were three persons? Would not these statements be misleading? In the next chapter he states, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. . . . That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa. 45:5-7). Once again, if God were really three persons, could he use such emphatic language as this? If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would it be honest for him to say, "There is no one besides Me?" Would he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead? In 46:9 God says, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." In this statement, there is one person speaking (notice the singular pronouns) and that singular person says that there is no one like him. I do not see how it is possible to see a Trinity in these passages.1

Surely the coming of Christ did not in any way compromise this strict Monotheism taught in the Old Testament. There is only one God. That God is our father. If Jesus is that God then Jesus is our father. As to his deity, Jesus Christ is God the Father. Isaiah 9:6 clearly calls him the Father. Some have argued that this should be translated "Father of Eternity," but not one major translation translates it that way (see my article: Should Isaiah 9:6 read "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity?"). However, even if we adopt the translation "Father of Eternity" does that diminish the force? Jesus is called the Father. I Corinthians 8:6 tells us that, "to us there is but one God, the Father." There is no God outside of the Father. So in the sense that Jesus is that God, then Jesus is the Father. Malachi 2:10 asks the question "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" So we all have one Father, and our Father is God. The reason we call God our Father is because he created us. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 tell us that all things were created by Jesus, thereby making him our Father

Jerry Hayes explains it this way:

Many times the question is asked, "If Jesus was Father God why did he not just say so?" The answer to this question is so completely summed up in Philippians 2:5-8. He was humble. He did not think it a good thing to flaunt his deity before men. He did not choose to appear better than man, although he was better than all men for he was the creator of all men. He choose, instead, to have all men appear better than himself.

Finally, I would like to look at a passage in Revelation 21, which clearly indicates that Jesus is the Father. Starting at verse 5 it reads: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new [we are made new by being in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)]." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true [in Rev. 3:14 and 19:11 Jesus is called "faithful and true"]." 6 Then He said to me, "It is done. [compare to John 19:30, "it is finished"] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. [in the very next chapter Jesus says this same thing, 22:13-16] I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost [Jesus gives the water of life, John 4:10-14; Rev. 7:17]. 7 He who overcomes [Jesus spoke these words seven times to each of the seven churches in the beginning of this epistle, 2:7,11,17,26;3:5,12,21] will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son" (emphasis added). Everything in this passage points towards Jesus as the speaker, yet at the end of the passage we realize that it is God the Father.

For the record that's one of the coolest things I find about Jesus Christ, is that he never played the God card. Jesus wasn't about worship me because I am God, but rather love as I have shown you to love (JMHO).

Link to comment

In another thread, a poster was describing the internal nature or relationship between the Father and Christ as "God in Man", a phrase I had heard being applied to mankind (usually something along the lines of godly qualities such as love and compassion in man being divine qualities that God has given us or what Genesis is referring to in "let us make man in our own image"), but not in my recall being applied to Jesus, at least not in the way that poster was doing so.

When asked for further clairification, the poster responded with this:

I am wondering if anyone else (thews is of course would be best to give his POV including how he developed it which I am very interested in) believes this or is aware of the belief and what its roots and justifications are and how it deals with verses such as Jesus' baptism where the Spirit descended from the heavens and the voice of the Father was also heard from heaven (I am assuming the belief is that Jesus was the Spirit as well) in Matt 3.

It sounds (though I admit since this is all I've heard about it that my confusion on this is extreme so I could be way off base) like a combination of modalism and Trinitarism, trying to avoid the major issue of both---in the first the heresy judgment and in the second the polytheism criticism).

PS: I did a quick google and saw that none dealt with the issue in the way it was being described...or at least I couldn't tell that they did, so am coming to this clean so to speak. If someone just wants to post a link to a site that explains this POV, I would appreciate that greatly.

This is not a Trinitarian perspective, you are right. We believe that only the Son incarnated. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not. As thews shows, it is a view of "Oneness Pentecostalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#The_Oneness_doctrine_of_God

Link to comment

Something more to chew on....

Jesus Gave this warning to his Disciples...

Matt. 16: 12

12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees

Therefore... it might just be a good idea to take anything they say or taught or Interpreted from the Scriputres... with a grain of salt.

One of Sadducees and Pharisees favorite and most prized "Doctrines" was their Hyper-Monothism which had been foisted on Israel when Josiah the King, reformed the Religion of Israel. He Cast the Images of the Sheknah (ie Queen of Heaven) out of the temple, drug them through the streets behind the chariots, and slaughtered any priests who would not deny her.

This was one of the doctrines the Jews nearly stoned Christ over... In John we read about this encounter.

Summary: Christ teaches the Jews in the Temple. He claims he is one with the Father making himself a Divine being. The Jews understand exactly what he is saying, and try to stone him. because According to them and the Religion they had been steeped in. "There was only One God and non othjer but he"

John 10

22

Link to comment

Thanks thews (and ChristKnight), I appreciate the information. I have never encountered the Oneness Pentacostal viewpoint 'face to face' so to speak, just vague references to it.

Is there a link that deals with the issue of what was going on during the baptism of Jesus or about the vision of Stephen where he saw Christ by the side of the Father?

Link to comment
PS: I did a quick google and saw that none dealt with the issue in the way it was being described...or at least I couldn't tell that they did, so am coming to this clean so to speak. If someone just wants to post a link to a site that explains this POV, I would appreciate that greatly.

The concept is called the hypostatic union. Sometimes it's called the mysterious union and it really is a fudge factor trinitarians use to hide the Biblical doctrine that the Father and the Son are really two separate Beings.

Link to comment

more food for thought...

...just stuff to think about..

thews,

Idealistically things ought to be a certain way. Therefore, they are that way! Or are they?

It must seem "idealistically" that these ideas you pasted are right, but are they REALLY what the scriptures teach?

The very term: "Son of God" implies a relationship of a being-- well-- a "son". A son is NEVER the same as a son's father.

To use the term "son" and then declare that the son is the same "substance" as the son's father is at best confusing.

No wonder Joseph Smith said:

We must have revelations then, and we can see that the doctrine of revelation as far transcends the doctrine of no revelation as knowledge is above ignorance; for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence." --10 March 1844

Richard

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

--D&C 35:2

[edited to replace the word person with the word substance to align with trinity doctrines.]

Link to comment

bump

this is a great topic ...I'd love to hear your LDS insight. Note that for the record I seriously do not believe there is a "correct" answer, as in the end there is one dance we all do alone. I was electrocuted and know what it's like to stand outside of my physical body. I know what it's like to wait to be judged, though i woke up before it happened (I didn't see anything).

Question: Who is Jesus Christ to you? Is he God in man, or the Son of the Father?

Link to comment

There are certainly Book of Mormon verses to support Jesus Christ as God, the Father. The fact that he is the Father and the Son could be understood as a paradox. The scriptures are full of paradox that we acknowledge as true.

He was the Son because of the flesh. The Father because of the spirit. And the Holy Spirit is the mind. Body, Mind and Spirit. That's kinda cool. The Lectures on Faith seem to be in harmony with this understanding as well.

This could also be seen at a type of what we are to do. The spiritual man must make the natural man subject to the spirit.

The LDS belief that Jehovah is Jesus Christ seems to only strengthen the arguement that he is God the Father (in my mind). In this case, I am unaware of any scripture where the people are not praying directly to Jehovah/Jesus Christ/Eternal Father. And every answer I am aware of comes from him. The entire D&C included.

The baptism scene is better understood when we realize that the "form of a dove" means the sign of a dove. The Spirit was not hovering in the air in the body of a dove. Obviously, if this scene is rendered literally then the voice out of heaven would seem a bit of a problem. But is it? Could God have this happen? If the dove is symbolic, could the voice be, too? Just questions to ponder.

For me the BoM scriptures that really drive home the concept that Jesus Christ is God the Eternal Father are these [(using BoM: The Earliest Text where you see an *) Emphisis mine]

1 Nephi 11:18* And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.

...21* And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!...26...Look and behold the condescension of God!...32*...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world

1 Nephi 13:40* And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

2 Nephi 26:12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Mosiah 16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

3 Nephi 1:14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son

Link to comment
In this case, I am unaware of any scripture where the people are not praying directly to Jehovah/Jesus Christ/Eternal Father.
Don't forget for the ones where Jesus himself is praying to the Father.
Link to comment

Thanks thews (and ChristKnight), I appreciate the information. I have never encountered the Oneness Pentacostal viewpoint 'face to face' so to speak, just vague references to it.

Is there a link that deals with the issue of what was going on during the baptism of Jesus or about the vision of Stephen where he saw Christ by the side of the Father?

For those interested this link from the site given above deals with the issues I asked about:

http://www.onenesspe...m/voicedove.htm

http://www.onenesspe.../stephensee.htm

While I don't find the articles persuasive, I do believe they are insightful and present a valid case except for one point:

. When he said he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, He was conveying that he saw Him in this exalted position as Lord over all. He saw Him in all of His glory, having all authority, might, power, dominion and strength, not physically standing on God's hand.
Stephen is being stoned to death and takes the time to talk in symbolical language rather than just saying what he sees.....this does not make sense to me as why did he not just exclaim "I see Christ in all the glory of God", but is in the realm of possibility. I find the use of the image of a giant right hand rather than the obvious and common usage that is even referred to in the paper of "on his right hand" equals "on his right hand side" to be an attempt to make other arguments that state "on the right hand" is literal appear absurd when they are not.

---

The hypostatic union is not surprising, imo, when one understands the assumption of most Western religious thought that has created an unbridgeable gap between Creator and created. How can something so different than man as God is be incarnate as a man otherwise?

Link to comment

It's ironic how the "Holy Ghost" is the still small voice whom without one would be lost, but one at 8 years old is able to determine whether the church is true or not without this Holy Ghost. . . which only decends on him/her AFTER baptism.

You misunderstand LDS thought if this is what you believe. It is the Gift of the Holy Ghost that becomes available at confirmation to Saints, the constant compansionship for those Saints who live worthy of having the Spirit with them.

All others can receive the Spirit if they seek him as well.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=e2462f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Link to comment

You misunderstand LDS thought if this is what you believe. It is the Gift of the Holy Ghost that becomes available at confirmation to Saints, the constant compansionship for those Saints who live worthy of having the Spirit with them.

All others can receive the Spirit if they seek him as well.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=e2462f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I wouldn't even bother with this one if I were you. As grandma used to say, Derefined is two socks short of a pair.

Link to comment

I wouldn't even bother with this one if I were you. As grandma used to say, Derefined is two socks short of a pair.

I don't have much time to bother about anyone in the next couple of days what with work and babysitting and stuff and stuff and more stuff. I'll wait and see if my answer 'takes' or not.
Link to comment

It's ironic how the "Holy Ghost" is the still small voice whom without one would be lost, but one at 8 years old is able to determine whether the church is true or not without this Holy Ghost. . . which only decends on him/her AFTER baptism.

BTW, Rd, you are derailing this thread. If you have an issue about the Holy Ghost that requires more than the short answer I gave, please take it to another thread. This one is for discussion the Oneness of God concepts.

Thank you.

PS: I would appreciate readers reporting those who derail the thread for whatever reason while I am not available to babysit...this is one thread I prefer not to go off on the usual wonderful diversions my threads seem to turn to. thews was kind enough to share his beliefs or at least things that interest him (I get the impression he is open to a range of interpretation at this point)

Link to comment

It's ironic how the "Holy Ghost" is the still small voice whom without one would be lost, but one at 8 years old is able to determine whether the church is true or not without this Holy Ghost. . . which only decends on him/her AFTER baptism.

Two things, first you don't understand that there are two "levels" of the Holy Ghost, there is the Spirit/Holy Ghost available to all who listens and seeks it, and then there is the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost which is only given by those in authority. This is not an LDS invention either, it's in the Bible. If your not aware of them it's because you either haven't read the Bible close enough, or you weren't shown them. There are several cases in which people were converted thus knew the spirit/holy ghost, then baptised, and even those baptising didn't have the authority to give the "Gift", they had to wait until someone with the authority came to give it.

Link to comment

BTW, Rd, you are derailing this thread. If you have an issue about the Holy Ghost that requires more than the short answer I gave, please take it to another thread. This one is for discussion the Oneness of God concepts.

Thank you.

Sorry to intrude. . . I didn't mean to make things uncomfortable. I hereby drop the Holy Ghost issue until another time arises that I can re-address it. My mistake.

Link to comment

Two things, first you don't understand that there are two "levels" of the Holy Ghost, there is the Spirit/Holy Ghost available to all who listens and seeks it, and then there is the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost which is only given by those in authority. This is not an LDS invention either, it's in the Bible. If your not aware of them it's because you either haven't read the Bible close enough, or you weren't shown them. There are several cases in which people were converted thus knew the spirit/holy ghost, then baptised, and even those baptising didn't have the authority to give the "Gift", they had to wait until someone with the authority came to give it.

I'll consider this, and let you know my thoughts if they are compelling enough to post about. Thanx Obiwan.

Link to comment

Sorry to intrude. . . I didn't mean to make things uncomfortable. I hereby drop the Holy Ghost issue until another time arises that I can re-address it. My mistake.

Thank you. Not uncomfortable...except maybe in the sense of a little clutter which I admit is bugging me big time right now around the house and likely on the board as well.

Link to comment

In another thread, a poster was describing the internal nature or relationship between the Father and Christ as "God in Man",...

Was Jesus "God in man" because he was a man AND at the same time he was something completely different than a man: God?

Or was Jesus "God in man" because he was a man, and a man can be God, and he happened to such a man?

The first requires that two otherwise incompatible beings be "one being". The second requires that "one being" be two of the things it can be.

In creedal Christianity, the ONE God is an infinite, immaterial, uncreated, inconceivable "being" outside of time and space that creates the universe out of nothing with blank check power. By the hypostatic union the finite, physical, born of Mary, much like us Jesus is at the same time this ONE God.

It seems to me that in this faith the "real" Jesus is the immaterial, inconceivable being-- but the physical Jesus is there so we can have something to relate to.

In Mormon Christianity, Jesus is just himself-- nothing else outside of time and space at the same time. The man Jesus is the son of God the Father and by overcoming all things becomes God the Father himself. Sons become like their Father in heaven just like on earth. The only real "Jesus" is the man who lived on earth 2000 years ago.

Richard

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...