christocentric monotheism: part one (eh?)
As we have seen (in the last few posts) , the ‘gift’ that persecution bestows on the people of God is the clarification of the central message of the Church. This in turn begs the question; what is that message? What does it look and feel like when reduced to utter simplicity? This study of phenomenal Jesus movements of history has led me to conclude that the answer is found in the substance of a genuine biblical monotheism—an existential encounter with the One God who claims and saves us. As simple, and perhaps at first uninspiring as this sounds, the belief that God is One lies at the heart of both the biblical faith as well as that of the remarkable Jesus movements of history. This irreducible affirmation lies at the heart of all authentic manifestations of Apostolic Genius. The next two blogs (part one and two) will try and reinterpret our faith and following of Jesus in the light of the Hebraic understanding of life. And it all starts with Israel’s basic confession, called the Shema Yisrael (Hear O’ Israel) based on Dt.6:4.
When the New Testament people of God confess that ‘Jesus is Lord and Savior,’ it is not just the simple confession that Jesus is our/my Master and we/I are his servants, and it certainly is that, but given the Hebraic context of that confession, and the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Messianic promises to Israel, the confession wholly reverberates with beliefs that go back to Israel’s primal confession that ‘Yahweh is Lord.’ As such, this confession touches upon the deepest possible currents in Biblical revelation: themes that take us directly to the nature of God, his relation to his world, and to his claim over all of our lives. It also relates to the defining encounter, the redemptive experience that forms the covenant relationship between God and his people.
To truly appreciate the power and centrality of this claim we need to set it in its original religious context—that of religious pluralism or polytheism: People living in the Ancient Near East were essentially a deeply spiritual people who recognized that life was filled with the sacred, the mystical, and the magical. There were numerous gods, demons, and angels who were seen as ruling over different spheres of life. Life was profoundly spiritual, but it was ruled by innumerable deities, many of whom we not very pleasant characters.
But the polytheistic view extended way beyond rivers and fields. There were deities that presided over every possible sphere of life: the state (politics), family deities, deities of war, fertility cults, etc. Life as a polytheist is not only complex (each deity had to be dealt with the appropriate decorum,) but was thoroughly superstitious (minor actions has massive spiritual consequences,) but it was also dangerous (not all the gods were good, in fact some were outright evil.) This was the overwhelming religious context of Israel.
And into this context comes the shema…
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one. Love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Dt.6:4-9 NIV)
The declaration in this religious context has direct and far reaching implications: What this meant to the person/s coming under this claim is that no longer could there be different gods for the different spheres of life, a god of the temple, another god of politics, a different god for fertility in the field, and yet another for the river, etc. But rather that Yahweh is the ONE God who rules over every aspect of life and the world. Yahweh is Lord of home, field, politics, work, etc. and the religious task was to honor this ONE God in and through all aspects of life. For “…for from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:35
.) This is what constitutes not only the basis of worship, but also sets the agenda for the central religious task of discipleship. It is a call for the Israelite to live his/her life under the Lordship of one God and not under the tyranny of the many gods. This is why the covenant between Israel and Yahweh begins with an absolute claim of Yahweh to all of Israel’s life and a total ban over idols and false gods (Ex.20:2-5.)
Comments
110 Responses to “christocentric monotheism: part one (eh?)”
In conversations with friends in the Emerging Village movement it seems many want to back away from the “Jesus as Lord and Savior” personal/corporate confessions. I understand that it is a pendulum swing away from evangelical/fundamentalist heavy-handedness, but it is a key foundational block of christian faith and practice, it may even be the mortar. As we swim in the post evangelical waters we must not abandon our dependence on Christ as savior and scripture as guide.
Looking forward to these posts, Alan. This sorting out of the defining truth and context is vital to what I’m doing. And I think that any missional pneumatology has to have this context, as well. We do not worship three Gods: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We worship ONE…and this great mystery is a challenge to wrap our brain around. I am, however, confident that it can be done…God is moving in too many powerful ways bringing this truth into focus for it to be otherwise.
I’m pumped
Good point Peggie. the overwhelming emphasis of the doctrine of the Trinity falls on the oneness of God. This aspect of God’s nature is inviolable, otherwise we end up in the heresy of tri-theism.
However the oneness of God is complicated by the belief that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit likewise. Otherwise we are left with modalist perceptions of a God who operates in different forms according to the task, or God who wears masks - a view that while expressed in different language, seems to be rather dominant in western theology. How Trinitarian theology actually impacts on missiology and ecclesiology is still in the pondering land for me. Sorry if I had taken it off the point a little there Alan!
Yup, that’s the whole mystery part, Christina! That we have a triune, yet MONOtheistic, God is the reality…and they have done their very best to help us relate to that reality which is so very “other” for us.
And it is in the continually reminding ourselves that the Father is God, and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but they are One in that there is only One WILL is key to this most important paradox…
But this is where the whole “dance” metaphor is so helpful to me. The God-that-is-in-community is in a beautiful dance…and they are in one dance, yet they have different parts they show us..so that we see a greater unity in the dance. And that they, through Jesus’ covenant, invite us into this dance with them…give us that privilege of joining our will to The Will that dances…the perichoresis of the earlier thread.
This is the point that helps keep me grounded…the remembering that there is only One Will and that everything that I am called to do and be in the Kingdom is to be aligned to that One Will…if I am paying attention to my steps in the dance the Father leads and listening to the music Jesus is making, and in step with the rhythm the Spirit is beating out.
How do we avoid the modalist perception of something just beyond our ability to understand? Can it be completely avoided? I think we will always try to understand the God that is three-in-one by understanding the Three as well as understanding the One…but as they are One, not as they are Three. If that makes sense.
And the dance helps me…because this dance is one that includes all in one Will/Dance.
Isn’t some of this paradox the same thing that we much deal with by being “in Christ” ourselves? We are mysteriously joined with him in the New Covenant…part of his very body…and connected with each other, not as individuals, but as part of the very Body of Christ.
I think our problems with separating God into three separate entities is why we tend to separate ourselves from the oneness that Jesus yearned for us–to be one together in his as he is with God…it is our lack of unity that is such a problem in the world.
I’m still processing, too…in my rambling way!
Yup, I’m pumped!
Hi Christina, Peggy and Alan…
Christina’s expressed one concern that provokes me to challenge all of us on this blog, to ensure we continue to work hard at articulating this clearly. I’m not clear that Alan’s title of “christocentric monotheism” articulates the reality for me… Even where a person’s first encounter with the Godhead is, in their understanding, an encounter with the person of Jesus Christ it doesn’t necessitate “Christ at the centre…” I know it can be perceived as semantics, but a “monotheistic Christology” might be a better place to start - recognising that we also need a pneumatology and a pateriology that is primarily monotheistic to fill out our understanding.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Okay, CS…did you post your #5 before you read my #4? Were we doing our “in sync” think again?
CS, I hadn’t thought to question the title (christocentric monotheism). Monotheism for me brings up God as one (obviously) but perhaps a potential error is to see God as one as greater and perhaps separate from the “sum of the parts - as in we have the trinity, but God (invoked primarily by the image of Father) is distinct and more definitive. I am studying Baxter Kruger at the moment, and he describes this position as referring to a distant being, where God is on one side, we are on the other. This image is faulty in that post-incarnation Jesus is arguably on both sides, and one may say that the sides need not exist as we have been drawn into the dance you described Peggy. CS, thanks for raising the need for a pneumatology and pateriology - I do wonder if this balance is missing in missional discussions….
In speaking of Christocentric monotheism and monotheistic Christology … isn’t this essentially an academic way of asking “How Christlike is God?” and “How Godlike is Christ?” I am not so sure we can look at such questions in isolation such that one is a starting point over the other. Jesus advises us, if we’ve seen him we’ve seen the Father. We could reverse that and say, if you’ve truly seen the Father you’ve seen Jesus. I think I’m going to refuse to go either/or on this one.
Matt, just wondering…does the historical context of Jesus’ words to his Jewish disciples come into play here? They mostly perceived the Father…and Jesus as Messiah and Son (fully man yet fully God) was a bit of a puzzle to them.
Yet when we are sharing the Good News to those who do not have the Jewish history, is not Jesus the God-Man not the proper place to start?
It seems to me that the answer to your questions is that God is not like Christ…God is Christ. Christ is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are One Community of Unity.
The deal, it seems to me, is that sometimes we meet them one at a time…but whichever we meet, they should always be introducing the other two directly! And this is where I see the educational process of the Church falling down. It’s the either/or deal that’s killing us. It’s an all for one and one for all kind of thing.
This is why I find it so crutial to get a simple understanding of God figured out at the start. Then, which ever way we start the introductions, depending on the individual and their awareness, we have a way to make the rest of the introductions straightforwardly.
Still processing….
You know what is funny, is that while I was reading this I got this creepy feeling that although I say I believe that there is one God, I have tended to act like there are more than one God.
When I am struggling financuially, the God I pray to is different (in my head) than the one I pray to when I need guidance about my marriage…etc.
It dawns on me as I was reading your post today that although I want to believe in “one” God, I don’t know how to.
I mean…financially.
I say I believe in one form of grammar, but do I really? hmmmm
Matt, once again you have taken the words right out of my mouth.
Hullo-o-o Matt…
I recognise that there is a danger of playing with words however I’m trying to raise a particular issue. It’s not simply “an academic way of asking “How Christlike is God?” and “How Godlike is Christ?” as Peggy points out “God is Christ. Christ is God.”
The point I am trying to articulate is that to term something as “___ centric” of necessity locates that element at the centre… I see that as an unnecessary humanistic interpolation that I don’t believe is biblically justifiable. Why is the Father not at the centre… why is the Spirit not at the centre… A “monotheistic Christology” acknowledges “monotheism” as the greater reality and Christology as one approach - along with pateriology and pneumatology - to a human embrace of a reality beyond understanding… does that make sense.
I’m not one for either/ors where they are unnecessary, but I am concerned that “Christocentric monotheism” is ontologically innacurate and leads people to the very place that Gary Davis recognises “although I say I believe that there is one God, I have tended to act like there are more than one God.” Verbally we profess a triune Godhead but in practice we are engaged in modalism!!
Does that make any more sense?
Slainte
A Celtic Son…
I am inclined to think that for much of my Christian journey I have been a modalist, simply for lack of understanding. It is not something talked about much, people seem to opt for the simple faith on this issue - one God three persons, whatever that means. I have always been curious to delve further even though it is fraught with difficulty. Moltmann suggests a tri-unity - where the three are so close in relationship, indwelling etc that the three form one - perhaps just semantics, but I think it does have a different flavour from the one and the three.
I think that an emphasis on Jesus makes sense, as much as anything because of his role within the Trinity. He is the One of the Three that has entered our life in a real and tangible way. Jesus facilitates our inclusion in relationship with God, both as Father, and within the Trinity. But I do think you are on to something CS, when you point out the problems of being” ____centric”. I guess it is possible to lose the distinctiveness of the members of the Trinity as captured in scripture in our quest to maintain monotheism. We live with the tension and mystery.
Is it possible that the whole ____centric issue as we have been discussing it is an error in focus–a false dichotomy?
Perhaps the problem is not so much whether we are to focus on Father or Son or Holy Spirit (although, it is a big problem when we focus on any one in a way that subordinates the other two, which I believe does happen all too frequently), but that we all too often focus on the practicalities of mission or church practice, instead of the reality of personal and dynamic relationship/adoption/co-mission with this amazing triune God?
So, this takes me back to Alan’s formula of Christology informs Missiology which informs Ecclesiology. And then the thought behind this post may be more one of “what does proper Christology look like?” And we are beginning to see that proper Christology must, by definition, include proper paterology and proper pneumatology.
Monotheology requires that there be one God. The mysterious reality we are confronted with is that our ONE God reveals to us that there are three of them in that ONE. So we grapple with how to get our finite brains around this infinite reality….
Perhaps we can begin bu making each discussion of our ONE God always include the presence and manifestation of the others. This is beginning to make a great deal of sense to me….
Still processing…
I’m beginning to remind myself of Data (from Star Trek) when he is downloading an enormous about of information…all the lights flashing…eyes tracking…mutting “interesting”….and then “processing” again and again….
…interesting….
hmmm…that “bu” was meant to be “by” and “mutting” was meant to be “muttering”…my fingers must have been muttering…perhaps that’s why we have so many typos in life…our fingers are muttering!
Let’s speak up, shall we
Good onya Peggy
“we can begin by making each discussion of our ONE God always include the presence and manifestation of the others…” That’s what I’ve been trying to get across; that although - because of our finite processing capability as created beings - we will always struggle to have the capacity to engage our minds with all three persons of the Godhead simultaneously, nonetheless, to present true Biblical monotheism, as we focus on one person we must ALWAYS do so in the acknowledgement of the presence of the others.
Now I think we’re beginning to develop that idea…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Well said Peggy and CS
Okay…now we’re getting somewhere…
…still processing….
Hullo-o-o…
having commented on the title of this thread, I’ll move on… First, a comment; it is a struggle to find ideas, thoughts and concepts to articulate much of what we are wrestling with… I continue to be grateful to those who contribute on this journey, may God in His wisdom guide our discussion and reveal truth in our midst…
Alan wrote; “the ‘gift’ that persecution bestows on the people of God is the clarification of the central message of the Church.” Again I’d articulate things differently here… and I think it’s one of the reasons that we’re at odds a little in these recent discussions.
I’m not so sure that persecution causes a clarification of the “MESSAGE” - with implications of simplification - as much as persecution forces people to seek God and brings with it a consequential engagement in encounter with the self-revealing God. In a sense it enforces a primal faith connection, there is a simple confidence in the faith that arises from encounter with God, which precedes any necessity to comprehend intellectually. I’m not convinced that people give up their lives for a simplified message, as much as they have had a primal, tangible, inexplicable but nonetheless real and definite “existential encounter” with God, and subsequently nothing can dissuade them from the reality they have encountered.
My life is defined by my initiating encounter with God, my journey since that recognition - God wasn’t previously absent, but I was - has been to try to understand who God is, who I am and what on earth happened. My journey is one of faith - created in the reality of encounter with God - seeking understanding. For me personally this means that my lack in understanding, of who God is and who I really am in Christ, does not undermine my faith - the reality and power of such a significant spiritual encounter is emblazoned on my heart, my mind and my soul. I recognise that it is simply that my intellect is insufficient to understand, and on my journey there are stages of lucidity that draw my understanding a little closer to where in reality I already am holistically! So while my thinking may get complicated it is in the effort to understand the reality of an encounter with God that resulted in a personal faith that is simple and which centres me in a place of peace.
As a result of God’s revelation, I recognise as the Hebrews did that everything in life is spiritual… my journey continues in daily putting aside the idols and false teachings that are generated by the gods of this age, and aiming to worship the one true God in every moment, with all of my heart, all of my soul, all of my mind and all of my strength. I continue to do this daily despite my many and repeated failures because I “know” in my heart the reality fo relationship and encounter with God. The spiritual reality determines the natural consequence, so Jesus teaches His followers to pray to see God’s kingdom come on the earth as it is in the heavens…
The centre of simple faith does not require language to “know” God, in fact the imposition of human understanding limits the possibility of embracing the extent of the reality. The closest I have got thus far in defining what I mean, is to connect with the concept of “knowing” in Genesis 4
. The KJV translates that “Adam KNEW Eve and she conceived and gave birth to a son,” there is an incredibly intimate and explosively powerful relationship in that concept of knowing, which produces conception and fruit. In comparative terms, relating to the biblical intention of marriage, in those moments of the most intense intimacy with your life’s partner, it is impossible to capture in thoughts and words the incredible expansive spiritual intimacy, all of which at times culminates in a few brief moments of losing oneself and yet being more aware of oneself than at any other moment in time… In the moments of intense connection at the fulfillment of intercourse I suspect we are closest to eternity that God has set in the hearts of humanity. In the moment there is no place for the thoughts of another, surrendered totally in the moment… that is the intimacy that God seeks with His people 24×7!! That is the great dance (perichoresis) that we are included in… the most powerful of all intimacies within the Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - yet one God.
It is all so simple… until we try to express what we now “know”…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Great images, CS…almost overwhelming, isn’t it?
This is where Alan’s articulation of liminality and communitas provide an important context, in my opinion. It is in times of liminality that we are removed from all other resources and must rely solely upon God…it is in those times that we experience the unimaginable power of the presence of the Holy Spirit within us…why are we so dense the rest of the time?
But once we have experienced this liminality, and God has brought us through…and many times connected us with like others…that together he forges communitas…which I am coming to see as another term for The Great Dance.
Yet, in Tolkien’s sense, it a form of eucatastrophe–an unexpected turning from disaster to victory. And what a disaster it is when we lost consciousness of The Dance…and so find ourselves wandering in the void instead of in step with Father-Son-Spirit in the intimate intermingling of “being known.”
Like you, CS, I have been changed by my experience of intimacy with God. When I was in my most alone and isolated time (young, single missionary with no one who “knew” me, different culture and language, an “outsider” to the rest of the mission group), the Holy Spirit spoke to my heart words of “knowing” that forged a faith that cannot be broken…it has been sorely tested in the 30 years since its forging, and only gets stronger!
And so I see the “distillation” that results from this kind of experience not necessarily one of simplifying the message, but stripping away all that hinders so that the truth about being “known” is always visible. In that state, I am less likely to be deceived or distracted by human concerns and am more able to see clearly what the Spirit is doing.
Perhaps it is a kind of active “knowing” … and we go back to the Dance…
…still processing
I believe this post needs a little persecution.
Wasn’t it supposed to be about clarifying the central purpose of the Church and breaking it down to it’s utmost simplicity?
Where’d the discussion about semantics jump in. I think we just invented a new class for seminary. “The Hermeneutics of Alan Hirsch”.
Seems to me that “clarifying” and “semantics” are companion tools in the same hermeneutic toolbelt, whether is Alan’s or anyone else’s
And while I’m at it, it is another opportunity for us to be glad that Alan is laying out his tools for us to see and ponder so that we may better understand how to properly build the Kingdom of God with the advantage of The Forgotten Ways…
So…thanks, Al!
er… hmmmmmmm Shema, yes. But to me it is a deeply personal thing how we encounter God. I was about five or six when my Dad left, after a difficult few years with him around (to put it mildly). It was my grandmother explaining that God is Father than started my journey, as I discovered that God as Father was what my earthly father was not, Father God was consistent, etc, sober even…
So my whole relationship with God was founded for the first few years on Father, and Jesus was just a bunch of stories until I was well in to teens, and the Holy Spirit some years later when I met up with charismatics.
So stripping it down to bare essentials we still need to start where people are, rather than imposing a formula on them?
But it’s a great discussion and I’m rivetted! :0)
Eleanor, God is God and he deals with us as he so wishes. Isn’t it wonderful? I have a dislike for formulas (especially theological ones) and so I don’t wish to be read as being formulaic. I just think that Christianity is defined by Christ and our experience of the Trinity is mediated by the second Person in the Trinity.
Thanks Peg, CS, and others for the feedback and clarification. I can’t tell you how important such issues are to me. Thanks for your comradeship here.
Peace Peggy, I was in now way denigrating the conversation or anyone involved. By hermeneutics I meant how we were breaking down and interpreting Alan’s message instead of following the theme. I was just lightening up the “Christocentric Monotheism - Montheistic Christianity” issue before we got so caught up in labels we forgot about the message.
And yes Alan, I’m with you on the centrality of Jesus and this is because He himself said the only way to the Father is through Him and it was Jesus that left the Holy Spirit for us.
Christocentric Monotheism, yeah, I like it. Thanks everyone.
All is cool, DC…I was just playing with your jest…and we TFW bloggers are not known for being able to actually follow any theme for long without digging in the dirt or chasing rabbits…all part of the fun
Hey Drummer, if you think that the current termnology is problematic, I was originally going to use Christologically Structured Theocentrism!
I understand the problem that some folk have with my language. The problem is that if we want to think creatively and intelligently about the issues at hand, we need to use concentrated language. I would never use this in normal life, but among people trying to think things through, I think it is critical.
Hey Alan,
while I think the current terminology is problematic, I’d consider it more biblically accurate to use “Christologically Structured Theocentrism.”
I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill, or get “so caught up in labels I forget [sic] about the message.” However, in light of your comment, that if “we want to think creatively and intelligently about the issues at hand, we need to use concentrated language. I would never use this in normal life, but among people trying to think things through, I think it is critical,” I’d want to clarify further…
In the spirit of pursuing accuracy, I’d just comment that I’m more at peace with the concept of structuring our theocentrism (the contruct centres on theos, with theos also centre)christologically than structuring our monotheism christocentrically… which could imply the Christ has to be at the centre of our monotheism - which of course He is, but WITH the Father and the Spirit, not exclusively, as the language could lead us to believe… if you get the point…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
YEah CS, but could you imagine the peels of laughter from across the globe if I tried that one!!!
I am really appreciating this debate as a contribution to my thinking on discipleship - what kind of faith encounter with God enables a person to sustain a relationship with God for life. I am convinced that the Lordship of Christ is integral to that process and that without it a conversion experience lacks the ‘incorporation into Christ’ which is genuine saving power.
The emphasis on monotheism hadn’t struck me before but its really cool; that life without Christ is a balancing act of competing desires, risks and obligations (described by Paul as slavery to sin) and that life in Christ is a wonderful simplification, the alining of every fragmented part of the self under one authority and within one afirming relationship.
Thanks!
Anna
Peggy said, “Yet when we are sharing the Good News to those who do not have the Jewish history, is not Jesus the God-Man not the proper place to start?”
I take Acts 17
as one of my primary queues for how to share Good News with those that do not accept the authority of the Torah or the Prophets. When I compare Paul’s approach here to Paul’s approach with Jews, I see the decisive shift as being more between opening with “God of the covenant” and opening with “God of the creation”. I don’t see Jesus as being the appropriate starting point in either situation. He’s the climax of the story, and that is no small part, but it helps to set the scene first. Furthermore, before saying anything too much I also like to locate whether the people I am conversing with are more familiar with God as intimate / immanent (as with Pagans and Buddhists) or God as ultimate / transcendent (as with Muslims and Deists). That shapes how I open more than anything else. As you know which crowd I move amongst more, and now knowing this, maybe you can now see why I consider missional pneumatology so important. Amongst people who relate easier to God as intimate, the Spirit of God moving within creation is a helpful starting point. I use missional pneumatology as a lead in to missional Christology.
As an example, with a woman who is using energy healing techniques to find wholeness, I would engage her in a conversation about the Spirit to begin with. Sure, I would move towards introducing Jesus as healer of mind body and spirit as the conversation progresses, but I wouldn’t rush it. I would take the time to explore her understanding of Spirit, her insights and misconceptions. I would then invite her to explore the Spirit more deeply and introduce Jesus as the revealer of the deeper mysteries of the Spirit. As the wounded healer who through the power of Spirit was raised from the dead, who can heal us all in mind body and spirit through his resurrection energies. I would then pose that the resurrection reveals him as God become enfleshed. The here astute will note this follows the path of a descending Christology rather than an ascending one. But note, I am not being proscriptive here for all people in all contexts - amongst Deists I would take a completely different tact.
Again, I prefer not to go either/or on any of this. I prefer to approach each context as the context demands.
Anna said, “The emphasis on monotheism hadn’t struck me before but its really cool”
I would say it’s also crucially important, cause when you consider “christocentric” pantheism was very much in vogue in the New Age Movement back a few years ago and that “christocentric” polytheism even rears its head in some circles (the inverted commas are very deliberate), then its clear that affirming Jesus is “divine” in some vague sorta way isn’t enough. We need to be clear the divine Jesus was and is a monotheist when the situation calls for it. How can Jesus be Lord if we don’t let his words shape our understandings of divinity? This is where the Mormons got in such a mess, in keeping Christ but dropping the monotheism as they reimagined the church. May our reimaginations be more grounded.
I always so appreciate your side of things, Matt. Thanks for taking the time to invest in us (me, particularly).
So much to think about…I must trust the Holy Spirit to file these things away so that he can bring them to my rememberance when it is timely. What would I do without him?
Thanks Peggy. It’s nice to know when something has been helpful. I wonder some times.
Matt, you are brilliant! Not just helpful. Seriously.
Jesus said he came to glorify the father. He taught us to pray to the father. Nowhere are we ever told to pray the the Pneuman hagios (holy spirit). The Father is a spirit. The father is holy he is “the” holy spirit and the father of all spirits.
Jesus was abba-centered on his God. “I go to my God and your God.”
He said the first and greatest commandment is
“hear o Israel hear Yah,the Elohah is one elohah.”
Pure Christian monotheism recognizes “For us there is but one God the Father ”
Jesus was a mortal man. There’s nothing that Azazel(Satan) would love more than to have Christians move from Yah-centerdness to Christ-centeredness. He has been trying to dethrone the Father from the beginning. If he can get us worshipping a man instead of God then we are idolaters.
Yah=the Father
Yahshuah=his human son our messiah
The Greeks have pushed Plato’s trinitarian mystery religion on Christians long enough. If you read only the words of Jesus and stop reading everyone else it will all clear up.
Peace
Robert Roberg
Gainesville FL
Hullo-o-o Robert…
I appreciate that you have come to your conclusions that Jesus is a mortal man, by pursuing Jesus in the Bible. Likewise I came to my conclusions that Jesus is God by reading the words of Jesus, reading the words written about Him by by those close to Him and also recognising the response from the people around Him in His context. I recently had this discussion with an older man who has been part of our church community for several years. I respectfully raised a number of questions with him from my study of the Scriptures, which I also present here as an opportunity for you to consider…
Firstly, I’d ask some questions of your comments; you’ve noted
“Jesus said he came to glorify the father,” I’d ask what you mean by that, I don’t recall Jesus quoted as stating that directly. I’ve found that Jesus tends to use the concept “glorify” more with respect to people glorifying God and to God glorifying Jesus!
What does it mean to “glorify” God? The root Hebrew term relates to “weight”, so to glorify God we apply to God the “weight” or significance that God deserves. We “magnify” God by allowing God to take the space in our lives appropriate to His glory etc. The root Greek term for “glory” relates to “appearance” and in a sense we can consider that glorifying God is allowing God to appear as God really is. In part at least it is us choosing to see God as God really is and allowing God to appear in our lives as God really is. Jesus glorifies God by revealing who God really is, God glorifies people by revealing who they really are - created in the image of God.
You quoted Jesus as saying;
“hear o Israel hear Yah,the Elohah is one elohah.”
The New Testament we have is written in Greek, so in Mark’s gospel Jesus is quoted using the terms “kurios” and “theos” for Lord and God. However, if we look to the source that He is quoting, which I expect was your intention, the Hebrew actually uses the term “elohim” rather than “eloahh” as you suggest. The former term “elohim” is the plural term, which is the predominant terminology that appears in the Hebrew Scriptures referring to God - “eloahh” appears about 50 times (mostly in the book of Job) “elohim” appears over 2,000 times. Why do the Jews use a plural term for their God who is One? Is there a clue in the Hebrew text thar=t the “trinitarian mystery” more than just a New Testament concept of a dualistic Platonic interpretation?
In John 10:30-33
Jesus made a statement “I and the Father are one,” the religious Jews of His day, clearly understood His teachings - including His claims to be God in that framework. Their comprehension was simple - we have to work much harder to comprehend - and they were prepared to stone Him for His “blasphemy,” why would that be the case for a mere mortal man who had made no claims to be God?
Jesus goes on in that passage and the Jews respond with further upset - “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is IN me, and I IN the Father.”
Clearly the Jews of Jesus’ day understood His claim to be the “Son of God” as synonymous with a claim to be God and therefore blasphemous. They also understood His claim to be IN the Father and the Father IN Him as blasphemous… because, in their understanding, Jesus was claiming to be God.
The Devil who came to tempt Him in the wilderness is reported in Matthew 4
and in Luke 4
as challenging Jesus with the provocation “IF You are the Son of God…” Clearly he knew who Jesus claimed to be, even before Jesus had made any public claims. Evil spirits are also reported as knowing who Jesus is… Mark 1:21-28
; 3:10-12; Luke 4:31-37
. Why would this be recorded of a mortal man, when it does not appear anywhere else in the Scriptures - clearly there is something different about this man compared to any other man in history.
In Matthew 26
Jesus is tried by the religious court of the Jews, the penalty will be death - enough of a deterent to persuade a mortal man to tell the truth, or perhaps even to lie to avoid the consequences. In verses 60 - 66 note the exchange where the high priest challenges Jesus, “tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” When Jesus responds that He is, the high priest tears his clothes and concludes that Jesus has spoken blasphemy and the sentence is death. This is also reported in Luke 22
; in verses 70 and 71; you can read:
“They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
He replied, “You are right in saying I am.”
Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
Removed in history as we are, we might claim that Jesus saying he is the “Son of God” is not the same as claiming He is God, but clearly that’s not how the informed, religious leaders of His day understood His claims… and they crucified Him for it…
In John 17
Jesus prays an incredible prayer… including the statement: “glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed,” Jesus is clearly making a statement that cannot be attributed to a “mortal man”. Jesus also prays that His people may be one as he and the Father “are one.”
The whole prologue of John’s gospel makes no sense, without an understanding that Jesus is “the Word” who “became flesh and made His dwelling among us.” This “Word” who was with God in the beginning and who “is God.” The concept of trinity is a mystery, but I have yet to come across any more convincing way of explaining the claims of Jesus.
The older gentleman, that I related these questions to, did have a couple of answers which I respectfully questioned further on the basis of what the Scriptures reveal. Our discussions continued for a while and although he was finally unable to support his assertion that Jesus did not claim divinity, he chose to hold on to that belief and sadly to withdraw from relationship with a community he has been part of for several years. We continue to visit and support him and he continues to insist that Jesus is not God. I consider that the apostle Paul faced similar issues with the church in Corith and he wrote,
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”
It would be my hope Robert that you could honestly explore some of the questions raised, rather than just retreat to the safety of prior knowledge. I’d invite you to take the time to research these ideas and sincerely debate the issues…
Slainte mhor agus a h-uile beannachd duibh
A Celtic Son
meaning: good health and every good blessing to you
I knew this would bring you out, Celtic Son. It was good to hear your words–well said, indeed.
Thanks Sister Peggy…
it’s interesting how on the rare occasions at present I have the opportunity to connect with TFW there is a comment destined to raise my passions and I am compelled to respond… one would almost think there was some grand design at work
Many blessings
Your Celtic Brother
…dominoes, anyone?
Dear son of the Celts,
although my ancestors came from celtic stock I take no solace in their errant ways and now identify myself as a son of God, brother and friend of Yahshuah, not that I am worthy of such titles for I have sinned often, but only because he says those who keep his words and in whom his words (logoi) dwells may do so.
Yahhuah said his Word logos is the seed that the sower sows. We hear the logos and let it sink down into our ears.We obey the logos and teach it to others. In the first 9 English translation of the NT all ranslators referred to the logos as an it not a he. John in a rather convulute poem called Yahshuah the Logos, but Yahshuah never claimed to be the logos he was the one who taught the logos. He identified the logso as something you learned, obeyed and taught to others.
John said he wrote his Gospel that you may know that Yahshuah is the Messiah the son of God (not God the son -a phrase that nowhere is found in scriptures)Jo 20:31
When Yahsuah asked who am I? Peter said You are he Messiah the son of the living God (not God the son). Jesus said this is the belief that is the rock he will build his church on. If you add to Peter’s confesion, or take away from it, you ar not part of his church.
If you say you are the Messiah, the son of God and you are God, you are adding to Peter’s statement.
The tradiion of the elders for 1700 years has reversed the words from son of God to God the son and God himself. We have inheirited lies from these Greek father
Lie number one “Jesus spoke Greek”. Papias in 120 AD said Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew and the other apostles copied it. In studying the Gospel always ask what might the Hebrew word be.
Since Jews were forbidden on pain of death to never speak the names of gentile gods Yahshuah would not have spoken it as Greek is full of the names of their demon gods. Theos is Zeus. Ouranus was the first god of the greeks a sky god who ate his children. When the high preist asked Yahshuah if he was the Messiah, if he spoke Greek, he would have replied. Yes and futhermore you will see the son of man coming on the clouds of ouranus. He did not speak Greek.
I have chosen Elohah for it is the singlar of Elohim. No Rabbi in the history of the world has thought Elohim indicates more than oneness in Abba. Every pronoun used for elohim is masculine singular (16,000 of them) I have avoided Elohim because it was used of pagan gods, judges, angels and even Moses was called an Elohim. Elohah is used only of the father.
Using only the words of Yahshauh CS please who me where he said he was God the son? Or said “I am God.” Or God is triune? Or god is three in one? Or we are the Father the son and the holy Ghost-one God?
Yahshuah explains John 10:30-33
in Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us
The father was in Yahshuah. His mortal body was the temple. Since the Father is in me. I can say the father and I are one. But that does not make me God, but it does make me his son. But not his uniquely birthed son like Yahshauh.
Yes he lived to give weight (glorify) the fathe not himself. He never intended to start a Christ-centered religion. He said to Satan thou shalt worship Yahveh and him only.
When I said he came to glorify the father I was not quoting but basing it on these verses:
Holy Father, keep them through thine own name . Joh 17:11
I have declared unto them thy name Jo 17:26
he glorified or gave weight to the father and the father’s name, not his own name. The father is greater.
He calls himself the door and Christians have become door-centered. He wanted us to be Abba-centered. We worship the door and not the one the door leads to.
Yes the rabble in the temple who did not know the scriptures and therefore erred thought he was claming to be God. But he set them straight reminding them that the Judges were called Elohim by David and he reminded them that never claimed to be Elohim. He reminded them that they too called Abba father and so he was doing only what they did when he said he was the son of Abba.
When they were silenced with these charges But when they miunderstood his statement about Abraham, they believed he was a false prophet worthy of death because he was claiming, they thought, to be older than Abraham.
The devil appeared to him in the desert for he had been tracking the oldest living sinless man. When he failed to tempt him into sin it says he left him for a later time. The average person sins around 5 or 6 Yahshuah had not gone unnoticed. He was no ordinary mortal.
Yahshuah’s favorite name for himself was a son of man (it means a motal). When Daniel had the vision of the one like a son of man coming on the clouds to the ancient of days. It was not God the son but a mortal. The high priest cried blasphemy when Yahshuah said you shall see a mortal ascending to the right hand of God (sitting on the right hand of power).
When I say he was a mortal I do not mean a mere mortal His father was Abba. He had the angel (pneuma)of Yahweh upon him.
In his last hours satan threw every bit of his power against him to force him into sin, but Satan was defeated.
Some theolocos try to divide him into a hybrid and say his man part could sin, but his God part couldn’t. If he was a hybrid then he was not a man like all men but a visitor from outer space. If he pre-existed he is not a man like we are but a visitor from beyond space and time.
This is what the docetists and the gnostics taught. the writer of first John however said if you deny Yahshuah was a real man you are anti-christ.
Bumper sticker: Real men do not pre-exist.
Yahsuah knew the scriptures he knew that Abba had designed the Cosmos for his coming son that one day he would beget. Yahshuah knew he existed in the father’s mind before the world began. he said father give me that weight that has been mine since before the world began.
Indeed Yahshuah is a snapshot (image) of the father (the exact image) but the snap shot is not the same as being the father.
Satan’s gaol is to knok the father off the throne and replace him with the snapshot.
Knock the father off the throne and replace him with the door to the throne room.
Knock the father off the throne and replace him with a Galilean earthling.
Knock the Shepherd of Israel off the throne and replace him with an assistant shepherd.
Knock Yahshuah off of the seat on the right hand of God and replace the son of God with the non-existent God the son.
peace
son of the lost celts.
from Robert Roberg
in Gainesville Fl
an unworthy son of Abba
Eh Robert? What was that about?
Hi Alan,
which part of that were you wondering about?
The part where I said if you add anything to Peter’s God given revelation as in You are the Messiah the son of the living God (and then add “and you are the living God”) you are not on the rock and if you are not on the rock you are not part of the church. Was that yor question?
Peace
Robert
Hi, can’t help entering the debate here. I am curious as to why the divinity of Jesus appears to be in question. Reading the gospels shows clearly his equating himself with God, in unity with the Father (oneness), in power, in joint will, in capacity to forgive sins - in short Jesus lays claim to doing what God does. In the great commission we are charged with baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Philippians 2:6
states describes Jesus as “being in very nature God”.
I can understand the problematic stretch of western logic to marry the threeness of God with the oneness of God. It doesn’t stitch up neatly, but I think that lessening the status of Jesus to mere humanity strips the incarnation of its beauty, wonder, power, servanthood, and ultimately, its meaning. Why follow Jesus, if he is only a man? Albeit a good one.
Greetings unworthy son of Abba…
I’ve got to agree with Alan that your post is not clear regarding what you’re actually intending to say – not just one part, but lots of the elements it contains.
The spurious and esoteric nature of your claims; the drift between Hebrew terms and Greek concepts; your claim to possessing superior knowledge to the religious leaders of the day, regarding the religious concepts Jesus presented; your “Bumper Sticker” theological statements; your denial of the divinity of Christ, all basically spell “gnosticism.” The idea that the devil was “tracking the oldest living sinless man” may sound like a good idea, but it’s not biblical… so what is it, where does it come from, what is the root? While “pneuma” can be translated “angel” it would be a very rare occurrence and it is almost exclusively translated as meaning “spirit.”
If you are seriously aiming to suggest there are issues with previous posts in this thread you’d need to do a better job of your research and support your claims. Using a vague non extant, single quote of Papias to suggest that the gospels were first written in Hebrew, is such a weak basis for that proposition that it is virtually impossible to believe that you expect to be taken seriously. For the sake of discussion …
In Michael Holmes introduction, to J.B Lightfoot’s translation of a range of ante-nicene patristic writings, which include fragments of Papias writings, he notes the following;
“the Fragments of Papias, [which] are all derived from the texts of other authors and thus have no independent textual basis.” Lightfoot and Harmer (trans.), The Apostolic Fathers (2nd ed.) page xvi
In his commentary J.B. Lightfoot notes
“many of his statements (e.g. that Matthew “composed” the “oracles” in the “Hebrew language”) are more baffling than helpful…” ibid, p307
Your comment that “Papias in 120 AD said Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew and the other apostles copied it,” is taken from a statement in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” over 200 years later, about a work that has no extant copy. In the same work Eusebius describes Papias as having a “small mental capacity.” Do you seriously expect anyone to engage with such a weak point? Particularly when, in contrast, we have literally thousands of fragments of the New Testament, letters of the early church Fathers, documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls all of which attest to the earliest texts being in Greek – including Hebrew concepts that developed from the common usage of the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Old Testament. If you want to be considered seriously then you’d best lay aside the esoteric and gnostic notions and build on some solid foundations.
I’m also not clear about the point you are trying to make between declaring the Gospels were written in Hebrew and asserting that we should ask what the Hebrew word might be, when you insist on using Greek terminology for “the word.” You are right of course that it would be a lie to state categorically that “Jesus spoke Greek,” though it would be naïve to suggest he did not have some understanding of Latin and Greek terminology, as the dominant world languages of his era. Which is why you’d recognise that I didn’t make that statement… what I wrote was
“The New Testament WE HAVE is WRITTEN in Greek, so in Mark’s gospel Jesus is quoted using the terms “kurios” and “theos” for Lord and God.”
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that my concern was not so much whether Jesus spoke Greek – which I did not suggest – but that your writing implies that Jesus spoke in Hebrew, which is even less likely. Note in John 19:19-20
that the sign nailed to the cross was written in the major languages of the day – three of them and Hebrew is not one of them.
The transliteration of the singular form of “elohim” in the Hebrew texts I have, is “eloahh” rather than “elohah” as you’ve written it - what particular texts are you getting your information from? As I pointed out previously, the singular form is used far less frequently and although, as you claim, “elohim” is used of gods other than the Lord God, so is the singular form “eloahh,” (e.g. 2 Chron 32:15
and Dan 11:37-39
) and is clearly NOT “used only of the father.” I made no reference to any “Rabbi in the history of the world [who] has thought Elohim indicates more than oneness in Abba. I simply pointed out that they use the term Elohim, rather than “elohah”[sic] as you suggest.
I do wonder – with Christina – “why the divinity of Jesus appears to be in question” and “Why follow Jesus, if he is only a man?” I did make efforts to point out to you, as per your first request, where Jesus makes claims of divinity in His own words. Please re-read post #40 and you’ll see – unless of course those words of Jesus claiming divinity were not the words of Jesus that you really would have preferred! You can find the answer there, if you’re prepared to look.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
ps. do you find it interesting at all that the Hebrew people make much of their ancestry, despite errant ways in their forebears they include them in the genealogy? It seems sad that you would deprive yourself of such fine practices and your heritage.
Dear Christina and Celtic son,
I see I bit off more than I could chew and tried to speak with my mouth full.
CS you must be reading the altered version of
my Bible says Joh 19:20 “This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin”.
John 19:20
The point I was trying to make is that the Messiah would not have allowed the names of Greek demon-gods in is mouth, so he would never have spoken Greek. The word for father in Greek is Pater. Dis Pater is the god of the underworld (he looks just like our common idea of the devil).
I only quoted Papias to note that there was a very early believer with “a “small mental capacity” who said the original Gospel was not in Greek, but Hebrew.
My point was that we have a Hebrew Messiah proclaiming the word of Yah, and it is doubtful that it was in the demon-ridden language of the idol worshipping Greeks who had been trying to destroy the Jews for 200 year.
That would be like sending someone to convert the Jews today who spoke with a German accent that was only spoken in Dachau.
I was only encouraging you and others to look for the Hebraic message behind the greek words. Nothing more or less or any pretensions that I see something that others don’t.
The Hebrew word for logos is davar or devarim. I used logos as that is the one word most Christians know.
Judging by your erudite posts CS I doubt that I lost you by swicthing from Greek to Hebrew and fallen American English
Since Christina and Alan were scratching their heads too, I’d like to state that I was responding to the title of this thread and arguing that Yahshuah never intended to start a Christo-centric movement. That was my whole point.
I thought I answered all of your scriptures CS, but I see you have not answered any of mine.
But I will be happy to answer them again. You said you dont recall where Yahshuah said he had glorified the father. It’ here
Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
I aswered your question about John 10:30
, Lk 4:31
(the temptations-of course if Yahshuah is God, then the temptaions are farces. He is incapable of being tempted). I ansered LK 22 at his trial. I answered John 17
where he prayed to be glorified. I answered John 1:1-14
. I don’t see what I overlooked, do you?
As to why the divinity of Yahshuah is an issue Christina is because if he is not divine then we have a man-centered religion and we are idolaters
I challenge anyone to show me in the words of Jesus and not Paul, or David, or the writers of 2nd Peter or the Letters of John and the Revelation, but in the red letter words of Yahshuah that he claimed to be a part of a truine God. If anyone is to be the authority about who he is it has to be he himself.
Christina you mentioned the baptismal formula of Father Son and Holy Spirit. Many if not all scholars see that as an early christian addition to the text. If Yahshuah actually spoke it how do you account for the fact that none -not one-of his disciples practised it in the Book of Acts? That would indicate that they had never heard of it.
Christina if you are quoting from the NIV I hope you are aware that it is a Dynamic Equivalent but not a true translation.
The phrase you quoted in Phil.2:6 is en morphe theou. The word Morphe does not mean nature. He is God’s image. He is God’s appointed representative. God has not morphed into our lives as a man because then we would not have real man, but a gnostic apparition of God. Yahshuah as a Man on earth was functioning in the status, rank, or position of God. He was en morphe Abba
God is not three. There is only one God Yah and Yahshuah is his man-child. We are to be Yah-centered and not centered on the man-child.
CS I do not claim, nor did I intend to claim having superior knowledge. I am a student of these things and have been wrong many times. If you can show me by the words of the Messiah where I am in error, I will gladly repent and change my position.
I never said Yahshauh is “only” a man. He had a miraculous virgin birth and lived a sinless life. I follow him because I love him and he said whoever keeps his words will have eternal life.
“His words”, not those of the apostles, or prophets.
Robert,
Unfortunately for your request, God has frequently chosen to speak through humans–whether prophets or apostles or judges or kings. I think it is a little bit of a stretch to ask us to abandon the rest of the Bible, particularly the New Testatment to prove to you something that God allowed others to speak and document after Christ returned to heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to birth the church.
For someone who admits to being a student who has been wrong many times, it might get you a little farther in engaging meaningful discussion if you took a step down with your rhetoric. I went to look at your website and read your article that you believe in a different Jesus than the rest of the world. You cannot, therefore, be too surprised that we are confused at your logic and do not readily agree with you. I don’t find your approach particularly gracious or peaceful…
If you just want to yank our chains to get a rise out of us, you’ve certainly done that. No one here is going to roll over and accept your terms, though. Do you have something you are willing to discuss openly rather than these statements of “fact” that you seem to want to spit out at us?
What is it that you want to accomplish?
Hullo-o-o Robert
You certainly have some interesting concepts, interesting yet not Biblical… What is your concern regarding what the rest of the Bible says about Jesus? I appreciate and understand your concern about the various concepts we humans have developed about Jesus Christ, I’d think most of us share those concerns. I doubt there are many on this blog advocating armed revolution in Jesus’ name – which, from a quick perusal of your website - seems to be the predominant justification and motivation for your reconceptualisation of “Jesus.”
Firstly an apology about my statement regarding John 19:20
. I made an assertion on the rendering of the verse, based on a previous study I had done – without giving you or anyone else the benefit of prior material. Clearly your preferred Bible is the King James Version, I tend to check against a couple of versions, but failed to do so on this occasion.
I make no claims to be a Greek scholar, I have done undergraduate level study in New Testament Greek and since then regularly refer to the Greek New Testament (UBC 4th edition) also using a number of texts and Lexicons. Part of my course of study involved translating John’s gospel from the Greek text. In John 19:20
, a word is used that is only present in the New Testament in John’s gospel and twice in Revelation.
I have to transliterate the text as the blog does not handle Greek or Hebrew text. The original term for “Hebrew” is effectively transliterated as “Heber”; when referring to the Hebrew language the term is Hebrais; referring to a Hebrew person would use the term Hebraios. In John 19:20
the word used is “Hebraisti” – in his lexicon, Mounce suggests it is like an adverb in English – so “Hebraistically.” Why did John use this term, rather than any of the plainer and more appropriate terms, if he simply wanted to say that the text was written in Hebrew?
In the culture of Jesus’ day it is likely that the common language was a form of Aramaic – the language of the conquering Assyrians – and that Hebrew was used in formal temple rituals. Such was the distance from the Hebrew language for the common people that the temple rituals were translated into common idiom for them to follow the service (Targums). You’ve suggested that behind the Greek language of the New Testament lie Hebrew concepts, a factor I’m agreed on, and in this case I suggest that what John was getting at was that the sign was written in Aramaic language, but the way that is was expressed rendered it “Hebraistically.” At the end of the day it’s interesting but not a major point, so I’ve never really made a big deal of that and should have clarified things better in the original post.
You didn’t lose me in switching between Greek and Hebrew concepts, it simply lacked apparent cause or logic to argue for Hebrew thought based on Papias and then propose the concept of “logos.” I did express some concerns in this thread earlier about suggesting a “Christocentric” theism, but from an entirely different perspective than you… I don’t think Jesus did intend to place Himself at the centre, but that doesn’t mean that I read into that any lack of divinity.
Contrary to your assertion you didn’t answer my questions, rather you diverted the focus to support your concepts. I have tried to show you in Jesus words where He claims divinity, but you are incapable of perceiving…
It is clear to me from John 10:30-33
that the Jews of his day – religious Jews who according to verse 22 had come to the temple for Hanukkah (not a rabble as you suggest) believed that Jesus, in His own words, was claiming to be God. It is clear to me from Luke 22:66-71
that the learned religious people of his day understood His claim, in His own words to be the “Son of God” as synonymous with a claim to be God and therefore blasphemous, they believed that He was claiming, in His own words, to be God. It seemed to me that you claim to have special knowledge, superior to these elders and leaders of the Jewish religion, as well as the countless number of scholars in Christianity who have failed to come to the conclusions you have, because of course, we do not have the special knowledge you have received.
If, as you suggest, we look for the Hebrew concepts behind the Greek writings then lets consider the statement that Jesus made in John 8:58
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him…
Not only does Jesus claim to have existed prior to Abraham, but He also uses the name that God identified Himself with in discussions with Moses – which is why they take up stones to cast at Him, it is the penalty for his claim to divinity. Several times in John’s gospel Jesus uses the phrase “I am,” which in their context, to a Hebrew mindset would clearly identify Him with the God who revealed Himself to Moses.
You claim that Jesus was neither divine, nor only a man, not some sort of “hybrid” so do you have any idea who Jesus Christ is?
This Jesus, whose words you keep, said to His followers;
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you
How can they teach you to obey everything He commanded them to teach if you choose not to listen to them? Are you not disobedient to the Lord you claim to follow? Or perhaps you prefer to consider this is a gloss?
Jesus made it clear to Peter in John 21
that He expected him to look after His followers and to feed them… How can that be done, when people with an attitude like you profess, refuse to listen?
Paul, in Ephesians 4
, states that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are “the gift of Christ” “for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”
How can you be obedient to Christ and not receive the words of the apostles or prophets?
The answer I’m afraid is that you cannot be true to the Biblical Jesus Christ, and not also follow the words of the apostles and prophets that He gave as a gift to His body.
It is my prayer that you are serious about your commitment to correct error and that you find the true Christ in your searching.
Slainte mhor agus a h-uile beannachd duibh
A Celtic Son
p.s. I don’t think that this discussion is going to take us any further toward the aims of The Forgotten Ways blog, if you are serious about seeking the truth about Jesus Christ, rather than just interpreting things your own way then the dialogue would be better continued on your website
I agree CS. I think that the issue being debated here is as you said about the assumed link between Jesus and violence (much more to do with human lust for power using any vehicle at its command rather than anything Jesus demonstrated or taught). Robert also questions the Trinity on his website, and dialogue is therefore difficult with such vastly different starting premises. And off topic.
Let’s vote Robert Off the Island
Peggy,
have I attacked any of you, or acused you of being non-christians, or blinded by Satan, or using condescending rhetoric, or being poor scholars?
Two days ago I was invited to a debate.
This is what some of you have said of my arguments
Spurious
Blinded by the God of this world
Tone down your rhetoric
Basically spells gnosticism
You need to do a better job of reseach
Naive
it is virtually impossible to believe that you expect to be taken seriously
I don’t find your approach particularly gracious or peaceful
you seem to want to spit out (ideas) at us
do you have any idea who Jesus Christ is?
Are you not disobedient to the Lord you claim to follow?
The answer I’m afraid is that you cannot be true to the Biblical Jesus Christ
I pray that you find Christ
the dialogue would be better continued on your website.
I agree CS.
Where I grew up in Washington State, my Jesuit debate coaches would call that Ad Hominen. Meaning you must debate a man’s arguments, but you lose the debate when you disparage the debater.
Yahshuah has the largest following in the world. His followers come in all sizes, shapes and colors. We believe so many different ways that there are over 100,000 separate denominations. We must show love and kindness to those we disagree with; knowing that we ourselves have sinned often and been wrong often.
I was attracted to your blog because you were talking about monotheism and Cristo-centrism. If your blog is exclusively for those who think as you do and there is no room to for discussion. Then I will move on.
I am not a prophet for the last prophet died on the cross. I am just one of the billions who love Yah and Yahshauh exchanging notes with brothers and sisters I pass on the road.
Peace to you.
Robert
BTW I use 109 Bibles when I study. They are available free online at http://www.Biblebureau.com
Robert,
I did not attack you personally, brother–I questioned your tone and attitude and what you were trying to accomplish.
We have many voices that contribute here and we are by no means all the same…but we are trying to use our limited time wisely with those who are truly searching for a discussion that is both helpful and respectful.
I apologize if you took these as attacks on you personally…that was certainly not my intent.
Perhaps it is helpful to remember that when you jump into a conversation, it helps to ask a few questions and give some context for your questions, rather than just come out swinging?
phew, 109 bibles to aid study would be hard work Robert. I must confess to not using even a tenth! I do like to include literal, dynamic equivalent, and word study tools to help but it is a difficult process once you start digging. I certainly did not intend offense - your comments have stimulated further thought, but I feel that the centrality of christocentric monotheism as it is understood in the context of this blog is hard to discuss further when one strips Jesus of his divinity and therefore central place in orthopraxis.
Robert,
Rather than vote you off the island, what I have sought to do is present you with an awareness (in passionate terms) of where the end of the island is, and where the shark infested waters begin. The island has a certain shape and certain resources that sustain certain types of life. If someone were unable to consume the food that sustains life here, then it would be dangerous for him or her to stay. It would be better for those who live on a different diet to be on an island that provides resource to their tastes or else to change and adapt to the diet on the island.
If you explore this blog you’ll find that the general shape is an aim to develop and motivate Biblical orthopraxy, including as Jesus Christ shapes it, and the source is Biblical orthodoxy. The divinity of Jesus Christ is a staple in the diet on this island. Anyone is welcome on the island, but is unlikely to be able to sustain life if they are unable to receive nourishment from the consumption of the food here. It would likewise be foolish of those on this island to simply stand by, and allow the introduction of elements that have proven in the past to be unhealthy here.
None of my comments were framed or intended as personal attacks on you, but they are intended to challenge your arguments, which I continue to see as spurious, gnostic etc, since none of your arguments has persuaded me otherwise. Asking if you know who Jesus Christ is, is a legitimate question, based on your own assertions that he is not divine, not hybrid, not just a man – so who or what is He? I am also not convinced that you keep Jesus’ words, because of the lack of consistency between the content of your posts and the character of Jesus, as presented in the Bible – these are critiques of your writings, which you have posted for comment, not attacks on your person.
I’d point out too Robert, that in His debating with the religious teachers of His day Jesus was accused of being empowered by “Beelzebub the prince of the devils,” He was accused of being a blasphemer and they plotted to kill Him. He called them “hypocrites… like unto whited sepulchres…” a “generation of vipers,” “evil.” Surely if you keep His words you’d have to be prepared to engage in robust debate, rather than divert challenges to your arguments, as if they were challenges to your person.
Jesus quotes other Scriptures on many occasions – if the person whose words you keep renders the Scriptures credible and uses them, why would you not do likewise? You conclude your post stating the “last prophet died on the cross”, yet the Scriptures say that, when He ascended, Jesus gave prophets to His church. Why should we accept your assertion, when the Bible asserts Jesus Christ doing something else? If you are a keeper of His words why are your words not consistent with His? I continue to ask, “Who do you say Jesus Christ is?” Whatever conclusion you’ve presented thus far I continue to contend is not Biblical; I’ve attempted to present my claims from the Bible, and from the research and legitimate scholarship of others more learned than I.
I have considered your arguments seriously enough to spend time reviewing texts, to try to ensure accuracy in presenting my own claims here, and I’ve apologised for assuming too much on one occasion. You have attempted to set up a framework for discussion on your terms that is not the framework that we are operating in here. We are committed to work with the framework of the Scriptures, not simply pick and choose those parts of the Scriptures that suit our argument or predetermined position.
I have legitimate concerns, which you have diverted from rather than respond to. As your Jesuit teachers would no doubt have instructed you, Ad Hominem means more than “you must debate a man’s arguments, but you lose the debate when you disparage the debater”. The principle of Ad Hominem is that, rather than responding to argument or factual claims in like manner and addressing the substance of the discussion, a party diverts the course of the argument by focussing instead on personal issues, which it seems to me is what your most recent post does.
Frankly Robert I’m not interested in keeping to discussion with people who are already just like me. My beliefs are validated, when they can stand up to the test of rigorous debate with those who believe differently. If I did not care to test my thinking or to debate, I would not commit the time to contribute. I am unapologetically passionate about what I believe “for I know whom I have believed.” Your comments have caused me to refresh my thinking and return to resources I have not used for a while. It has challenged me to revisit the root of why I have concluded that Jesus is divine, why I believe in a Triune Godhead, rather than just sitting on something that I researched some time in the past. For that at least I am grateful.
I continue to pray that you are serious about your commitment to correct error and that you find the true Christ in your searching. I hope that you utilise the text of those 109 Bibles that you have access to, beyond simply what Jesus has said and connect with what was said about Him and engage in what Jesus has done and is doing.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I was in error concerning my staatemnt that Jesus was the Last prophert. In my readings this morning I came across.
Mat 23:34
“Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.”
Since these are the words of Yahshuah, the Messiah, the son of YAH they are truth.
As I said before if anyone can show me how my beliefs do not line up with Yahshuah’s words I am willing to repent of my errors and change my position. I hereby repent of my false statement and belief and renounce it.
Peace
Robert (sheepishly hiding in the Jungle on the far side of the island)
Answering Questions
CS asks “Who do you say Christ is?
I stand with the following witnesses in Scripture:
Peter
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Mt.16:16)
Mark
)
“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of Yahveh.” (Mark 1:1
John
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the messiah, the Son of Yahveh; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (John 20:31
)
“Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of Yahveh, Yahveh dwells in him and he in Yahveh”. (1 John 4:15
)
Martha
)
“She saith unto him, Yea, Master: I believe that thou art the Messiah, the Son of Yahveh,” (John 111:8
The 12 Apostles right after he calmed the storm on the sea of Galilee
“Then they that were in the ship came and bowed to him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of Yahveh”
Nathaniel
“Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of Yahveh; thou art the King of Israel.” (John 1:49
)
The Two Disciples on the road to Emmaus
“And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.” (Luke 24:19
)
Robert Roberg
Jesus (Yahshuah) is as a prophet, a king, the messiah, a rabbi, and the son of Yahveh.
Robert,
Perhaps this might help enlighten you as to why I find it difficult to follow your “logic,” and have suggested that I find it difficult to take you seriously…
In your posts on this blog, up till now you demand that we answer your questions on who Jesus is, only from the words of Jesus, yet when you respond to the question who He is you use quotes from many accounts except those of Jesus? You refuse to take seriously the comments of some ion the Scriptures regarding who they believe Jesus is, unless it suits the argument you have already put forward. You have avoided questions by shifting the focus and making it personal rather than about the issues, and then accusing others of practices of ad hominem.
To live a full and healthy life you need to eat of the food on the whole island, not live on a partial diet, hidden in the dark in a small jungle on the outskirts. That limited diet will lead to lack of vitality and blindness. Jesus invites you to His banqueting table - if the Scriptures were good enough for Him they ought to be good enough for all of us.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Celtic S,
you are so hard to please. Your question was who do I say Jesus is? and so I joined with the witnesses in the Gospels to tell you.
I am not saying that all the voices in the Bible are in error. I am saying I base my theology only on the words of Jesus. Anything that agrees with his words I acccept and obey, but anything that disagrees with his words I reject.
Celtic Son,
Here is what Yahshuah said about himself
I am the Son of man (John 6:27
)
Son of man means a human, a mortal.
82 times in the 4 Gospels Yahshuah is called, or calls himself the son of man.
“I am the son of god”. (John 10:36
)
I am the messiah John 4:25
“My Father is greater than I.” (Jn.14:28)
“The words which you hear are not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. “(Jn.14:24)
“I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things.” (Jn.8:38)
“The Father is in me.” (Jn.14:11)
The Father is my God
“I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”. (John 20:17
)
“Thou shalt worship Yahweh thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8
)
and here is what Moses said
“God is not a man…Nor a son of man”. Numbers 23:19
:
Life in the Jungle has its up and downs. My food is the living bread and living water and I have a wifi connection, but nowhere to lay my head and the natives tend to be hostile. They are loathe to give up the traditions of the elders. They eat this fattening tuber like goo which they say is their main staple. It makes them quite fat and cranky.
Son of Man may mean “human” to you, but that’s a little simplistic, Robert. Perhaps you might look at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html