Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I'm not able to quote chapter and verse...but...didn't Jesus say that
    he had to be baptized to fulfill scripture?
    
    Marc H.

 Matthew 3:15 says he was being baptised "to fulfil all righteousness"..or to
accomplish God's mission.  I also believe it signaled the beginning of His 
ministry..whatever the reason it certainly seemed to please His Father
(Matthew 3:17)




Jim

    As I believe in the humanity and not divinity of Jesus Christ, his
    baptism ritualistically commemorates his free decision to enter into
    a communion with Goddess/God.  He thereby serves as an example of how
    each of us can choose a life of oneness with Goddess/God.

    As Jim in .2 alluded to, it sounds like it was simply a
    ritual to mark a transition.  A way of honoring who He
    was and who He became.

    Sounds quite sane to me.

    Tom

 At risk of starting a rathole, in which I'll not participate, I'm curious
 as to how .3 comes to that conclusion.





Jim

    RE: .3 .5

    Which conclusion?  That Christ was human or that His baptism
    ritualistically commemorated his decision?

    And does it matter if someone believes that Christ was human
    and someone else believes He was divine.

    And if we are made in His image, who's to say that a human's
    essence is *not* divine?

    Tom

.    Which conclusion?  That Christ was human or that His baptism
.    ritualistically commemorated his decision?


     Well, I believe Christ is human and devine..God in human form
     I was curious as to how .3 arrived at her conclusion


    .And does it matter if someone believes that Christ was human
    .and someone else believes He was divine.


     Not really, I guess...unless one is concerned about where they will
     spend eternity.

    



 Jim

Note 718.7

>     Not really, I guess...unless one is concerned about where they will
>     spend eternity.

I'd be curious to know how you arrived at *this* conclusion.

Richard

    
    		I believe that Christ was both divine *AND* human and that 
    aspects of both are brought out in the Gospels.  Why?  Because Christ 
    was showing obediance (sp) to God's will.  There are times to question
    and others to not and I believe that the little voice (the Holy Spirit)
    will guide you in and around these times.
    
    Dave

.I'd be curious to know how you arrived at *this* conclusion.



 Well, I believe that who we say that Jesus is (God or man) is critical
 to the Christian faith.  And if we miss that one, I believe our salvation
 is in jeopardy.



 Jim

    I believe that Christ Jesus was both indelibly human and inextricably
    divine.  I do not believe this belief alone guarantees me a ticket
    to Heaven.
    
    Furthermore, if I end up stuck for all eternity between Pat Robertson
    and Will Perkins, it won't be Heaven.  It'll be Hell.
    
    Richard
    

    We seem to have concensus here that Jesus was baptized for none of the
    reasons John was baptizing.
    
    Richard
    

>    I believe that Christ Jesus was both indelibly human and inextricably
>    divine.  I do not believe this belief alone guarantees me a ticket
>    to Heaven.
    
    I don't think that anyone says it does. What is often suggested is that
    believing that Jesus is divine is a critical piece of belief. After
    all, if He lied about that what else might be false?
    
    		Alfred

>    Furthermore, if I end up stuck for all eternity between Pat Robertson
>    and Will Perkins, it won't be Heaven.  It'll be Hell.
    
    Hell for who? :-)
    
    			Alfred

    
    Isn't the N.T. definition of baptism symbolic of Jesus's death and
    resurrection?  Jesus always was giving new definitions to old ways
    and teachings.
    
    Jill

    
    	It did effectivly begin his ministry.
    
    
    Dave

.    I believe that Christ Jesus was both indelibly human and inextricably
.    divine.  I do not believe this belief alone guarantees me a ticket
.    to Heaven.
 

  Me neither.  But it certainly is critical.

   
  

 Jim    

    .14,
    
    Thought of that myself and chuckled.  It would be funny if it turned out
    Heaven was not quite what they expected, either! ;-)
    
    Richard
    

>  Me neither.  But it certainly is critical.

I'm not so certain how critical it is.  I believe God will grant an afterlife,
provided there is an afterlife, to whom God will.

Peace,
Richard

So, its a cointoss?  A crapshoot?  All the stuff about obedience to His
word, the wages of sin, no man cometh unto the Father but by me, etc is
meaningless?



Jim

    >I believe God will grant an afterlife, provided there is an afterlife,
    >to whom God will.
    
    That was very well put, Richard.  And I concur.
    
    This also gets back to the escapist theology that you discussed
    earlier.  Many see reason for their faith as a means of getting
    themselves into heaven.  My own view is quite different; whatever
    happens in the afterlife, if there is one, will be revealed to me in
    good time, but it is irrelevant to my religious faith.
    
    -- Mike

    .20  All I'm saying is that if there is an afterlife, I believe that
    there will be some who will be very surprised to see who made it and
    who did not.
    
    Jesus said "the Spirit goes where it will" and a few other things that
    seem to defy a prescribed formula for insuring Heaven.
    
    Richard
    

.    .20  All I'm saying is that if there is an afterlife, I believe that
.    there will be some who will be very surprised to see who made it and
.    who did not.
    
 
     Agreed.


  Jim
       

    I believe that Jesus was baptism served two purposes.  It was a sign 
    his humanness; a way for him to show that he, in his human nature, like
    us, must be repentant.  Jesus was human and as such was susceptible to
    temptation.  Secondly, he was showing his subordination to the Father;
    his desire to please and to obey the Father.

    re .20

    > So, its a cointoss?  A crapshoot?  All the stuff about obedience to His
    > word, the wages of sin, no man cometh unto the Father but by me, etc is
    > meaningless?

    This is binary thinking. Question one thing, even a key thing, and the
    questioner is accused of rejecting the entirety of God's will.  I
    reject this.  God will judge people's hearts, and not their limited
    mental ability to comprehend the totality of His essence and nature.
    
    Just my opinion, of course.
    
    	Eric

	Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord
	teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
	Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
	truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul
	and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as
	regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance
	with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart
	from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before
	the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men
	and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer
	(Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
	recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
	without division, without separation; the distinction of
	natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
	characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming
	together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
	separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
	begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
	from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
	himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
	down to us.

    RE .5 .6
    
    Jim,
    
    My position that Jesus is fully human and not divine follows the
    classical 19th Unitarian Christian argument.  Essentially the argument is
    that there is but one God identified in the Bible as the Father.  No where
    in the Bible does Jesus identify himself as the same as God.  He
    identifies himself as sent by God and speaking only by God's authority. 
    There is no reference to God the Father and Jesus being of one Godhead. 
    That is a theology of later councils.  If God the Father and Jesus are
    two separate and unique essences then monotheism will not allow that
    they both are divine.  As a second example Jesus is an example for us
    because he is fully human.  He overcomes human temptations, makes human
    decisions and suffers human pain.  He can be no example to us if he is
    not fully human.  His suffering is no suffering, his death is no death
    if he is divine.  The example only has meaning if he is fully human.
    
    His baptism is then a human baptism into a union with Goddess/God.
    
    RE .5 I also agree with you in that Jesus participates in divinity in
    the same way that all women and men as children of Goddess/God, are
    created in the image of the Divine and thereby participate in Divinity.
    
    
    Patricia

    RE: .25 John

    Could you put that in your own words?

    Tom

>Could you put that in your own words?

Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is fully God and fully man.

Jesus is God, the Word of the Father, who existed before all worlds.
Jesus said that he was God when he said "Before Abraham was, I AM".
He said that he was God when he said "I and the Father are one."

Jesus is also man, of human flesh, of his mother, the Virgin Mary.

At the instant of his miraculous incarnation, when the angel Gabriel said to
Mary "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb", the divine Son, who existed together
with the Father before the Big Bang, before time began, became human.  This
union of God and man, from the moment on his incarnation on, became completely
inseparable, and continues to exist today, in heaven, where our risen Lord has
taken our human nature and sits at the right hand of God.

/john

>If Jesus and God are two separate and unique essences then monotheism will
>not allow that they both are divine.

Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are two separate persons, but not
two separate essences.

We may not confound the Persons, nor divide the substance.

There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

Likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

    RE: .28/.29
    
    In my early church classes, the Holy Trinity was explained in a similar
    manner. The look of puzzlement on my face (Second grade) and others
    over the "they are the same, yet, they are seperate"......caused the
    nuns to conclude by saying that the Holy Trinity was just something
    you had to accept and would be clear when you died and went to heaven.
    
    Its still a mystery to me!
    
    Marc H.

	Think of it this way. I am Thelma's husband, Ace's father, and Marc's
	friend. I appear to all three differently. Yet I am just one person.
	The Trinity is sort of like that but more so. :-)

			Alfred

 Think of water in its liquid, gaseous and solid forms...it is still
 water.





Jim

    Re: .32/.31
    
    Triple point and friendship I can understand. The Holy Trinity is just
    plain beyond me.
    
    The idea that Jesus was divine and human at the same time I can follow,
    all three though? 
    
    Marc H.

>            <<< Note 718.31 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>
>	Think of it this way. I am Thelma's husband, Ace's father, and Marc's
>	friend. I appear to all three differently. Yet I am just one person.
>	The Trinity is sort of like that but more so. :-)

    That's just like saying:

    Brahma is the creator
    Vishnu is the sustainer
    Shiva is the destroyer
    Ganesh is the remover of obsticles
    Kali is the purifier
    etc.

    330 million in one.  All just aspects of the *same* God.

    And you thought the Hindu religion was polytheistic.  :-)

    Tom

    The position that the 19th century Unitarians took was similar to Tom's
    position.  I personally have not spent enough time studying the Bible,
    but Channing, Emerson, and Parker as well as others felt there was no
    Biblical support for the concept of the Trinity and the concept created
    more confusion than it solved.  Channing states that there are many
    instances in which Jesus clearly states that he is separate from God
    but a few where he does define himself in divine terms.  Channing in
    particular was himself invested in the authority of the Bible so
    therefore relied on further analysis to reconcile the differing
    statements.  What was clear to the Unitarians was that such a complex
    and ambiguous theology would have been more clearly stated in the Bible
    if it were true.  The question of the humanity/divinity of Jesus does
    logically follow from how you answer the trinity question.  If Jesus
    and God are two separate Persons and Essences, then monotheism only
    allow one of them to be God.  The alternative is a Supreme God and a
    lessor God which is still Polytheism.
    
    For me, Jesus as fully human is a much more powerful figure than Jesus
    as divine.  As fully human, he is a figure who we can sympathize with
    and  emulate.  

>If Jesus and God are two separate Persons and Essences, then monotheism only
>allows one of them to be God.  The alternative is a Supreme God and a lesser
>God which is still Polytheism.

The third alternative, the doctrine of the trinity, is that Jesus and God
are two separate persons but one substance.

/john

Re: .36 John

>The third alternative, the doctrine of the trinity, is that Jesus and God
>are two separate persons but one substance.

Do you mean one substance in the sense that you are I are of one
substance, i.e. we're both made of flesh and blood?  Or is it in the same
sense that Sybil's multiple personalities were of one substance, i.e. they
all inhabited Sybil's body?

				-- Bob

>Jesus and God are two separate persons but one substance.
    
    Am I the only one who finds explanation to be just as incomprehensible
    as the doctrine that it tries to explain?
    
    -- Mike

    Actually, Mike, it's just one way of looking at it.

    God is Love.  Jesus is Love.  They are of the same substance.
    They may "look" different and seem different but they are both
    made of the "god stuff", Love.

    Some prefer to believe that there *is* no difference.  That they
    are not different.

    It's just perception and not really that important as long as you
    work on the Love aspect.
    
    Tom

    I think the hang up is on the word "substance." God as a being or
    a substance is different than people as a being or substance. The
    nature of this substance is what allows this Trinity to "happen."
    Understanding this substance is not easy, and I don't believe I do.
    What I do believe is that this nature of God does exist and that it
    explains the Trinity. Sort of like using the square root of negative
    one in mathematics. :-)

    		Alfred

    
    		For me, the Trinity is like the human body...ie: the head
    is God, one hand the Holy Spirit, and the other hand Jesus.  Now I've
    seen this kind of discussion (trinity explinitions) go down a lot of
    "rat holes" in the past. :-)
    
    
    Dave 

    Maybe I will take it down a rathole.  If multiple bodies can be one
    substance.  And God is Love and Jesus is love.  And we are talking about
    multiple parts of the same body.  Why not add maitron, mother, and
    crone and have a double trinity to represent the female aspect of God
    as well as the male aspect of God.
    
    This theology is no more complicated than the trinity idea.
    
    Patricia

    Also see topic 59 "Trinitarianism"
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re .42

Why not?  Well, Jesus clearly revealed himself, the Father, and the Spirit.
He talked about all three, but not about anything else.

/john

    RE .42

    .44 John

>Why not?  Well, Jesus clearly revealed himself, the Father, and the Spirit.
>He talked about all three, but not about anything else.

    Well, Pat, I guess that leaves *you* out.  :-P
    I guess women just don't have any part of this....     NOT!!!

    Climb out of your Book and see what it is It's talking about!
    It's talking about Love.  Go out there and Love.  Love doesn't
    mean excluding people.  Love means honoring everyone as an
    expression of God's Love.  You can start by honoring Jesus, but
    that's just the starting point.

    God is Love.  God is divine.  Where there is love there is divinity.
    If you find love in Jesus, fine.  If you fine love at home, fine.
    If you find love in the crone, fine.  Each is a stepping stone to
    the next until you *finally* fulfill the Great Commandment.

    Do you detect a pattern here?  If it's love it's important.  What,
    in Jesus' name, is *more* important?

    Perhaps Jesus didn't reveal himself as the Mother because the little
    minds of the time wouldn't have been able to handle that.  They probably
    would have stoned him for "being a pervert".  At least he escaped 
    *that* fate....  *groan*

    Tom

I exclude noone, so please get down off your high horse.

Jesus did reveal himself as "Mother" to Julian of Norwich, sometime
in the late 14th century.  But not as a fourth person, but as Jesus,
the Son of God, whose love for us is like a perfect mother.

/john

    Are you implying that this same love, this same divinity
    can have a feminine form?

    Do you believe Julian of Norwich's words or are they just
    ideas that you haven't embraced?

    Tom

    Tom,
    
    I am with you.  The greatest commandment is to love God and to love
    ones neighbors.  That makes Christianity extremely simple and extremely
    beautiful.  Theology has built around this religion complicated,
    ambiguous doctrines such as the trinity which the majority of people cannot
    comprehend.  Some "Christians" will then contend that you either accept
    the doctrines on blind faith or be one of the truly gifted persons that
    can comprehend them or else you suffer eternal damnation.  
    
    The simplicity and beauty of the religion of love is truly powerful.
    
    
                      Patricia

>    Are you implying that this same love, this same divinity
>    can have a feminine form?

God the Father is neither masculine nor feminine; the words that have been
revealed to be used for Him throughout history and especially by His Son,
who taught us to pray "Our Father, who art in heaven..." are masculine.
That does not mean that God does not have feminine attributes.

>    Do you believe Julian of Norwich's words or are they just
>    ideas that you haven't embraced?

Julian of Norwich does not say that the Son of God has a feminine form;
she describes him with feminine attributes.  For example:

    We make our humble complaint to our beloved Mother, and he
    sprinkles us with his precious blood, and makes our soul
    pliable and tender...
    Thus in Jesus, our true Mother, has our life been grounded,
    through his own uncreated foresight, and the Father's almighty
    power, and the exalted and sovereign goodness of the Holy Spirit.
    In taking our nature he restored us to life; in his blessed death
    upon the cross he bore us to eternal life; and now, since then,
    and until the Day of Judgement, he feeds and helps us on -- just
    as one would expect the supreme and royal nature of motherhood
    to act, and the natural needs of childhood to require.

I can embrace Julian's ideas without any compromise of the doctrine of
the Trinity or any other orthodox Christian theological doctrine.

/john

    Also see Note 256, "Using Gender Terms to refer to God"
    
    Richard
    

 How do those who don't accept the trinity explain Acts 5:3-4, where lying
 to the Holy Spirit is equated to lying to God?





 Jim

    So, what I'm getting here is we have:

	1. God the Father
	2. God the Mother
	3. God the Son (essentially God taking a human form)
	4. The Holy Spirit

    That these are simply ways that our genderless God can 
    express Him/Herself.

    Tom

    >How do those who don't accept the trinity explain Acts 5:3-4, where
    >lying to the Holy Spirit is equated to lying to God?
    
    I do accept the Trinity.  Yet I can see how doing a disservice to one who
    is close to me, but not me directly, could be perceived as a disservice
    to me.
    
    Richard
    

>    So, what I'm getting here is we have:
>
>	1. God the Father
>	2. God the Mother
>	3. God the Son (essentially God taking a human form)
>	4. The Holy Spirit

I don't know where you're getting that from what I quoted from Julian of
Norwich.  She speaks clearly of exactly three persons.

We worship God in Unity and Trinity.  We do not worship "God the Mother".
We worship "God the Son" who exhibits perfect motherhood.

/john

    
    Patricia, Jesus did claim to be God.  Blasphemy was one of the reason 
    the Jews had Him killed.  And how many times did he state that He
    was I AM?  Also, you might want to check out Colossian 2:9 which 
    says "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily 
    form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is head over 
    every power and authority." 
    
    Jill

Actually, the doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of faith.  The Bible
seems to hint at it, but never quite states it outright.  If one accepts
a doctrine, one will see passages that support it.  If one doesn't, one
won't.

Richard

 John 10:30-31 "I and the Father are one.  And the Jews took up stones
 again to stone Him".



 

 Jim

    And if I am in union (one) with Christ, does that make me the
    same as Christ?
    
    Certainly not.
    
    Does it make me Christ-like?
    
    Maybe, but not necessarily.
    
    Richard
    

 Why would they want to kill Him if he was saying He was merely in
 union with God?  Anybody could make that claim.





Jim

    Many, including his own disciples, frequently either misunderstood or
    misconstrued what Jesus said.
    
    Richard
    

 John 20:28  Thomas answered and said to Him "My Lord and my God".
        :29  "..because you have seen me, have you believed?  Blessed
              are those who did not see and yet believed".



         After Thomas touched Jesus' wounds.  Doesn't seem to be much
         misunderstanding there.





 Jim

    Jim,
    
    	Please understand, I'm not trying to change your belief.  I was
    merely pointing out how someone who did not accept the doctrine of the
    Trinity might see things.
    
    	I doubt that you would base your whole Trinitarian outlook on a single
    exclamation made by Thomas.  Or would you?
    
    Richard