Christ- God's Son or God? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 68 Old 01-16-2007, 09:19 AM
 
FLDoula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli's_mommy View Post
That makes sense- but what I'm asking is that Jesus is then part of the firstborn of all creatures? Am I interpreting that correctly?

I'm probably getting off on a tangent here, but, what if a woman had a child with a man and that was their first born, but then she divorced (or left) him and had another child with a childless man. That second child would be his firstborn but not hers...what happens then? I think of really odd things sometimes. Sorry to be a pita.
My belief is that Jesus was created first. I would explain it from the man's standpoint............If a man was with a woman and created a child, that child would be his first born and always will be, even if he were to marry someone else and have children with them.
FLDoula is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 68 Old 01-17-2007, 01:49 PM
 
AmyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
Colosians 1:14, 15 says: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Here it says that Jesus was the firstborn of every creature, therefore he must have been in heaven prior to coming to earth as the creative days were way before he came to earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli's_mommy View Post
I'm sorry if I totally interpreted this incorrectly, but Jesus is a part of all firstborn? Including human children? But not any subsequent...????
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
Some translations say he is the first born of all creation, meaning that he has not always existed but was the first creation of God himself. If he was created, then he cannot be God Almighty as he has not always existed. Does that make sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli's_mommy View Post
That makes sense- but what I'm asking is that Jesus is then part of the firstborn of all creatures? Am I interpreting that correctly?

I'm probably getting off on a tangent here, but, what if a woman had a child with a man and that was their first born, but then she divorced (or left) him and had another child with a childless man. That second child would be his firstborn but not hers...what happens then? I think of really odd things sometimes. Sorry to be a pita.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
My belief is that Jesus was created first. I would explain it from the man's standpoint............If a man was with a woman and created a child, that child would be his first born and always will be, even if he were to marry someone else and have children with them.
You two are having an exchange that has been tripping me out! I think Eli's Mommy has been asking one thing, and FLDoula has continued to answer/clarify the original question she was asked by another poster. I quoted your relevant posts and added bold/italics to highlight the meaning I took. Ever since I read Eli's Mommy's first post, it has seemed (to me) like she read the quotation and was asking about whether it means Jesus is somehow present in the firstborn of all creation. (Uniquely present in the firstborn, which is where her question about not being part of "any subsequent" creatures comes in, I think.) I think that's what she's been asking each time.

The "Jesus was the firstborn of every creature" part is it, I think. Which, in FLDoula's posts seems to mean the first born of all--the firstborn creature of all creatures, or first-created of all creation--rather than meaning every creature's firstborn (or the firstborn to each and every individual creature.)

Is that what you were asking about, Eli's mommy?
AmyC is offline  
#63 of 68 Old 01-17-2007, 09:05 PM
 
FLDoula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you for making me see what Eli's mommy was asking. I guess I got lost.

My belief is this:

1) God has always existed with no beginning and no end
2) God created Jesus in heaven as his "first born of all creation"
3) God and Jesus worked together in creating the earth and everything else in it, including man
4) Adam sinned and therefore lost perfection requiring a redeption for all of us as we are all sinners
5) Jesus (God's son) was sent to earth and took the form of man to die as a ransom for us
6) Jesus died and was resurrected to heaven and will have power up there sitting at the right hand of his father

The scriptures that are in the gospels that indicate that Jesus said that he and his father were one do seem to indicate that they are the same.

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

However, further on he says:

John 17: 21, 22 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity?

Based on my belief, Jesus and God are "one" in that they are united in thought and purpose but not "one" as in one being.
FLDoula is offline  
#64 of 68 Old 01-18-2007, 12:58 AM
 
AmyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post

My belief is this:

1) God has always existed with no beginning and no end
2) God created Jesus in heaven as his "first born of all creation"
3) God and Jesus worked together in creating the earth and everything else in it, including man
4) Adam sinned and therefore lost perfection requiring a redeption for all of us as we are all sinners
5) Jesus (God's son) was sent to earth and took the form of man to die as a ransom for us
6) Jesus died and was resurrected to heaven and will have power up there sitting at the right hand of his father

The scriptures that are in the gospels that indicate that Jesus said that he and his father were one do seem to indicate that they are the same.

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

However, further on he says:

John 17: 21, 22 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity?

Based on my belief, Jesus and God are "one" in that they are united in thought and purpose but not "one" as in one being.
I appreciate how your beliefs have worked to reconcile certain issues, to provide congruency and logic. I totally see where you're coming from. (I don't agree about the ransom part, but I will say that that's where I see the usual model of the trinity breaking down, anyway. The sacrificial death, the atonement, the division between God the Father and God the Son. So, in essence the same problem. You "get around" that differently than I do, definitely, but I'm intrigued with where you get!)

In light of your reading of John 10:30 (and I don't particularly argue with your reading, or the context you provide by referencing the verses in John 17; part of my belief about Christ's connection to God is that it is more a difference in degree rather than in kind, regarding our own connection to God as children of God....), I was wondering about how you read something like John 14:9, when Jesus says, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."
AmyC is offline  
#65 of 68 Old 01-18-2007, 12:46 PM
 
FLDoula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyC View Post
I don't agree about the ransom part
Can you explain further? Since our beliefs are obviously different, I just wanted clarification. Do you believe that we do not need a ransom because we are sinners, or am I misunderstanding.

Gotta run for now, but will come back to the other part of your question on John 14:9
FLDoula is offline  
#66 of 68 Old 01-18-2007, 01:39 PM
 
NewCrunchyDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Burrow
Posts: 2,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
Thank you for making me see what Eli's mommy was asking. I guess I got lost.

My belief is this:

1) God has always existed with no beginning and no end
2) God created Jesus in heaven as his "first born of all creation"
3) God and Jesus worked together in creating the earth and everything else in it, including man
4) Adam sinned and therefore lost perfection requiring a redeption for all of us as we are all sinners
5) Jesus (God's son) was sent to earth and took the form of man to die as a ransom for us
6) Jesus died and was resurrected to heaven and will have power up there sitting at the right hand of his father

The scriptures that are in the gospels that indicate that Jesus said that he and his father were one do seem to indicate that they are the same.

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

However, further on he says:

John 17: 21, 22 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity?

Based on my belief, Jesus and God are "one" in that they are united in thought and purpose but not "one" as in one being.
Beautifully articulated FLDoula. This happens to be my belief as well. That Christ and God the Father are united (one) in thought but separate (two) in being/personage.

"A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." - Tyrion Lannister

NewCrunchyDaddy is offline  
#67 of 68 Old 01-22-2007, 03:42 AM
 
AmyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
Can you explain further? Since our beliefs are obviously different, I just wanted clarification. Do you believe that we do not need a ransom because we are sinners, or am I misunderstanding.

Gotta run for now, but will come back to the other part of your question on John 14:9

Hey, sorry to take so long to get back to you. I know that I've written here about my beliefs about Christ's death, and the trinity (which is so intimately related to doctrines about the crucifixion, the atonement.) So I searched to find a couple of those posts.

To answer your question, I'm providing a link to my answer on the "Christ died for you?" thread from awhile back.
Here, also, is a quote lifted from what I wrote there:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyC
I do believe that Jesus came to save us from our sins, and that salvation is through him. (I look to his many "believe on me" statements, for example, and his accompanying explanations of what it means to "believe.") I believe that his death was a necessary part of his earthly process as the incarnate Lord, "God with us," and that his resurrection was the inevitable result of his complete union with the divine. Jesus many times said that he came to save us from our sins, but I don't believe that means he died to pay the penalty for our sins, as is claimed in the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement.

I don't see it as God the Father unable to be reconciled to sinful creation except by the transfer of guilt to the Son through his sacrificial death, and then applying his (Christ's) merit to us so that we can be redeemed. And I do not believe that explanation is the only way to interpret the scriptural account, like it's the obvious only way (though I do see why people interpret it this way.)
I posted a second time to that thread, as well.

from that second post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyC
What if Jesus' death had more to do with him? (With his life, his mission, his process of glorification.) What if God's love & mercy, the endless compassion that you mentioned, is indeed sufficient for us? What if "saving us from our sins" has more to do with our lives and growth than with a sacrifice?

I think it's worthwhile to ask in what way(s) does he save us, how does he save us "from our sins." And in asking that, to consider is it perhaps missing something to say that "obviously" it means saving Christians from hell if they accept his death as their vicarious atonement?

For starters, I don't believe it's an "of course" kind of situation. The gospel accounts simply don't give a theological interpretation of what happened at Christ's death. We read the story with those "of course" connections in our minds, as if it's obvious what is happening and how it should be taken, but that is through the lens of teaching and preaching that we have absorbed. Which is based on the commentary of others who have interpreted the gospel accounts (starting with, I guess, the epistles. And on from there.)

. . . . .

The idea of God the Father needing to be appeased (or his just judgment satisfied), and God the Son as a willing sacrifice in our stead paying a penalty for the sins of all, is an interpretation of the events and it is rooted in an doctrine of the trinity that we can date as coming about at Nicea. It is not the only "biblical" way to interpret the very same scriptural accounts.

Jesus talks of believing on him, but even though people will treat that as an "of course" kind of "obviously that means X" statement, you will not get that from him. What you will get from him are statements that illustrate what "believing on him" looks like, and they are very concrete and life/behavior oriented.

. . . . .

One of those "of course" ways that we read the crucifixion account involves the usual idea of the trinity of persons. You need a trinity of persons (well, actually you only need two!) in order for the vicarious atonement to make any sense. And many people feel that the doctrine of the vicarious atonement is the foundation of Christianity, so it has to be assumed, and there they stop, reinforcing the necessity of the trinity of persons once again.

If you truly believe in the unity of God, not a trinity of persons, you are left with the burden of dealing with the crucifixion (and how Christ saves) in some way that harmonizes with that unity.


So anyway, that last paragraph expresses what I was thinking of when I remarked that you seemed to see, essentially, the same problem as I. And I think you and I get around the "problem" of the trinity differently. I say what I said, and it seems to me that you say that Jesus is the Son of God but not God. One in purpose with God, but not the same as God. Which also addresses the "problem" that I've been talking about.

I cannot tell, though, if you are identifying one supreme being as Almighty God and saying that Jesus is his son and not himself a god at all, or if you simply are making a distinction that Jesus is a different personage than Almighty God (his son), and allowing indeed for him to be divine. Just not the same as God the creator of all life/God the Father. From your earliest posts on this thread (and from some of your contributions I've noticed in past threads), it has seemed to me that you make the case that Jesus was not God (and I just assumed, not divine.) But I guess you've left it open enough to allow that he is a god, just not that God. So I honestly cannot tell.

This quote from yet another thread expresses some more of my thinking on the subject of Christ's death: the ransom, the vicarious atonement, and the problem of a unity of purpose/love

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyC in "Christians and the Trinity" thread
I think there are different ways of understanding the concept of the trinity. It's my opinion that some are theologically problematic, such as the belief in a trinity of persons, each of whom separately is God.

I do think that the "trinity of persons" is a human construct in conflict with the clear teaching that the Lord our God is One. Ultimately in this day and age, I don't think it always gets in the way of people living Christian lives. I think the overall message of Christ has infused the values of many, as well as the teachings of many churches/people IN SPITE of the creeds or doctrines they profess. But I do think it can lead to problems with an individual's concept of God.

. . . . .

Any satisfying doctrine of the trinity should fully assert the divinity of the Lord (Christ) without falling into the pit of tritheism. I believe that God is one. His essence cannot be divided. It follows that God is one person (not three.) If there is a trinity, the trinity must be within that person. I believe that the trinity is not a trinity of separate individuals, but of essentials within One.

And in defending the truth that God is One, it is not just a numerical oneness to be defended. It is a unity of purpose, a unity of love. There is not the Father who in perfect righteousness demands absolute justice, appeased or satisfied by the Son who in mercy volunteers himself instead. The love and forgiveness of Jesus ARE in fact the love and forgiveness of the Father. The divine is wholly devoted to our blessing, and the divine does not condemn.

I have no problem, personally, with passages such as the one PrincessDoll quoted: Col 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," or that Christ is the one in whom "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form."

I do not think you need a model of a trinity of persons to understand this claim.
AmyC is offline  
#68 of 68 Old 03-14-2007, 02:06 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I suppose my view of Jesus Christ isn't very popular.

I believe he was a son of God, not THE son of God, and as divine as the rest of us but more in tune with his divinity than most and also having a closer relationship with the Divine, manifested to him as the God of Israel, than most.

I don't believe that Jesus meant that he and God are the same person. Saying that you and your father are one can be figurative, meaning that you have the same opinion, plan, whatever. My husband and I are one, but we are two different people nevertheless. I think much of the Bible is interpreted literally that is actually meant to be metaphorical or figurative, and Jesus was known for speaking, eh, sort of in riddles with his parabols and whatnot.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off