God and Man; The meaning of "Incarnation"

Originally posted by BlueMule
Much of what the Bible says, it says between the lines. That is where the hidden wisdom of God is found. It

That's what I've been saying.
You project your fancies onto the Bible to make it mean anything that pleases you.

I'd rather look for the meaning intended by the writers.

And if you want to continue claiming that the Bible calls Jesus a mystic, you need to back it up with something detailed and specific.
What you have offered so far is vague and evasive. Or is that the mystic way?

Originally posted by DISRAELI

I'd rather look for the meaning intended by the writers.

Then you're a fool for ignoring the scholarship of the comparative fields. Only a cross-cultural approach can highlight the invisible threads that bind the writers together, under the surface.

Contemporary dogma can't do that. Too myopic.

And if you want to continue claiming that the Bible calls Jesus a mystic, you need to back it up with something detailed and specific.
What you have offered so far is vague and evasive. Or is that the mystic way?

All I need to do is point you to classes in comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, comparative religion and let education do the rest.



Good luck.

reply to post by BlueMule

Then you don't have anything specific to back up "What the Bible says about Jesus is that he was a mystic".
I thought not.
So, as I said before, the Christian religion is based on what the Bible does say about Jesus.

The significance for the church of Christ being "made man" is illustrated by the "high church" custom of kneeling during the recital of the Nicene Creed at the words "came down from heaven" (and getting up again at the words "and was crucified").
I enountered this in "high" Anglican services, and I assume it was borrowed from Catholic practice.
Presumably this is expressing reverence towards the fact of the Incarnation and his time spent on earth.

It's important to redress the balance on this question, because popular Christianity seems too anxious about the challenge to the divinity of Christ to be able to acknowledge his humanity and treat it as seriously as it needs to be treated.
The popular phrase "Jesus is God" is symptomatic.
I remember once drawing our curate's attention to a popular chorus which was on diaplay from the overhead projector at the time;
With respect to the line "Hands that flung stars into space, to cruel nails surrendered", I pointed out that the concept was Monophysite, and he felt compelled to admit that I seemed right.

reply to post by DISRAELI


God has previously refuted the christian doctrines so no matter how many roman higher ups decide that jesus is God and there is a trinity blah blah blah they can only ignore what is called the actual words of God in the Old Testament.

God says he is one and there is no other.
God says that he does not share his glory with anyone else.
Case closed.

This information obviously only applies to those that believe in the God of Abraham as christians say they do but then they ignore everything that Abrahams God said in order to accommodate the doctrine that was invented by the romans.

Its not that I mind christians making up a new religion, its just agonizing watching them try to make the square peg of christianity fit into the circle shaped hole of Hashem's own words.

reply to post by ALLDRAFT

The teaching is based on the New Testament.
You can't blame "roman higher-ups" because they had nothing to do with developing the doctrine;
The Roman church was NEVER in charge of the church as a whole, and "papal power" as we understand it today didn't even begin to exist until about a thousand years after the death of Christ.
I've done a thread on that issue as well, and there will be more to fill in the gaps;
The springboard of papal power

reply to post by ALLDRAFT

P.S. The Christian faith accepts and agrees with the teaching that there is only one God.
The first line of the Nicene Creed is "I believe in one God...".
However, the doctrine of the Trinity follows on from the doctrine of the Incarnation, so the doctrine of the Incarnation needs to be understood first.
That's why this thread was about the Incarnation rather than the Trinity.

I believe this thread may still be topical.

a reply to: DISRAELI

1. We are not Begotten Son. We are just human. We are made by our parents. We are not the word becoming flesh. Incarnation, if exist, only apply to Jesus the Begotten Son of God.

2. A triurne God is a dangerous intrepretation to play with. Why do the christians need to divide God in three substances and treat each subtances differently instead of one true whole and entire God?

3. Only the christians believe of "God of God." No other Abrahamic Religions believe such blasphemy.

4. There is no such things as Begotten son and Incarnation through Holy Spirit. The divinity of Jesus as a whole and entire God, is that the early christians believe God descended from Heaven and become flesh to walk among man and to pay Adam's sin with his own blood by crucifixion and humiliation by the sons of Adam. Jesus is merely a carrier for God to be humble among man before he ascended to Heaven by ressurection. Everything else is just The Council of Nicaea's intrepretation of Triune God. A trinity that is foreign to Jews scriptures from which Jesus learned.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
1.We are not the word becoming flesh. Incarnation, if exist, only apply to Jesus the Begotten Son of God.

This thread was not applying the theological concept to any other person.
Linguistically, though, a more general application is implied (as I was explaining) by the use of the term "reincarnation". This has to be admitted if we look at the etymology of the word.

2. A triurne God is a dangerous intrepretation to play with. Why do the christians need to divide God in three substances and treat each subtances differently instead of one true whole and entire God?

You are not quite familiar with the terminology of the debate. The accepted Trinitarian formula has been "Three Persons in ONE Substance [OUSIA]". The idea of "three substances" (Tritheism) was officially condemned at a very early stage.
The Christian understanding of God is imposed upon them by inference from the teaching of the New Testament. Without that obligation, it would be much more convenient to believe in something simpler and easier to explain.

3. Only the christians believe of "God of God."

Yes. And? If it is a true understanding of God, the fact that other people don't believe it has no relevance.
If you really think that truth can be determined by democratic vote, you had better become an atheist at once.

4. ...early christians believe God descended from Heaven and become flesh to walk among man and to pay Adam's sin with his own blood by crucifixion and humiliation by the sons of Adam.

Yes, he "became flesh". That is Incarnation. That is exactly what I have been talking about.
As the early church discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity follows on by a reasoning process from the doctrine of the Incarnation. That is why there is no point in discussing the Trinity until the Incarnation has been accepted.
If you look closely at the details of the history, the Nicene Council and the Council of Chalcedon were mainly about defining and rejecting those interpretations which were NOT acceptable.

In this thread, The Word became flesh, I look more closely at the opening of John's gospel, the point in the New Testament where the doctrine is most clearly expressed.
In this thread, Jesus is a man, I tackle one of the common misunderstandings of Incarnation.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
This thread was not applying the theological concept to any other person.
Linguistically, though, a more general application is implied (as I was explaining) by the use of the term "reincarnation". This has to be admitted if we look at the etymology of the word.

Sorry my mistake. I was thinking your OP about human in general. But you imply spesifically Jesus Incarnation.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
You are not quite familiar with the terminology of the debate. The accepted Trinitarian formula has been "Three Persons in ONE Substance [OUSIA]". The idea of "three substances" (Tritheism) was officially condemned at a very early stage.
The Christian understanding of God is imposed upon them by inference from the teaching of the New Testament. Without that obligation, it would be much more convenient to believe in something simpler and easier to explain.

Right. 3 Gods in 1 God. The teaching of polytheism. Making it easier to dismiss.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Yes. And? If it is a true understanding of God, the fact that other people don't believe it has no relevance.
If you really think that truth can be determined by democratic vote, you had better become an atheist at once.

No, the truth is determined by the confirmation of many older scriptures, Moses 10 commandments and the many sayings of Jesus, there is only one true God.

"God of God," imply more than one Gods. So who is this "God of God"? God the Father, or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Yes, he "became flesh". That is Incarnation. That is exactly what I have been talking about.
As the early church discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity follows on by a reasoning process from the doctrine of the Incarnation. That is why there is no point in discussing the Trinity until the Incarnation has been accepted.

Incarnation through Virgin Mary was well understood by early christians even without the acceptance of Council's trinity.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
If you look closely at the details of the history, the Nicene Council and the Council of Chalcedon were mainly about defining and rejecting those interpretations which were NOT acceptable.

Not acceptable according to who? Authority of several circles of men? Since when do men have more authority over God's words than all the prophets and messiah? All the prophets and messiah worship one and only true God; "Our Father in Heaven". No one worship the lamb of God who creation specifically meant for sacrification. Abraham never worship his lamb either.

Foreign intrepretation of Abraham's God not known to Jesus now authorize the worship of 3 Gods under 1 disguise; the God Father, the God Son and The God of Holy Spirit is acceptable? The christians really like to invent something that isnt there.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Right. 3 Gods in 1 Gods. The teaching of polytheism.

No, 3 "Persons" in one God. Tri-unity.

"God of God," imply more than one Gods. So who is this "God of God"? God the Father, or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit?

Evidently you don't know that phrase in its original context, because the context would answer that last question. It is one of a series of statements being made about the Son;
"God FROM God [the ambiguous "OF" translation is misleading], Light FROM light, True God FROM True God".
There is a two-fold message; that the Son is truly God, and he derives from the Father.

Incarnation through Virgin Mary was well understood by early christians even without the acceptance of the Council's trinity.

Yes, I know. That's what I said. I then went on to point out that the doctrine of the Trinity follows on by a reasoning process from the doctrine of the Incarnation, so that accepting one involves accepting the other.

Not acceptable according to who? Authority of several circles of men?

Acceptable according to the authority of the New Testament, which is the authority of God. The Incarnation had been understood on that authority from the very beginning.
The Councils were rejecting those teachings which obviously clashed with the understanding of the Incarnation which the church had taught from the beginning.

Incidentally, I notice in your signature the declaration that you are not here to argue. "If you disagree, I'm fine with that".
So why are you arguing with me? I am expressing a viewpoint which disagrees with yours, so by your own principles you ought to be "fine with that", not arguing the point.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I'm fine with that. Thank you.

Good luck.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The accepted Trinitarian formula has been "Three Persons in ONE Substance [OUSIA]". The idea of "three substances" (Tritheism) was officially condemned at a very early stage. The Christian understanding of God is imposed upon them by inference from the teaching of the New Testament. Without that obligation, it would be much more convenient to believe in something simpler and easier to explain.

Well said with clarity. I love the way you teach.

Myth Versus Fact—The Truth About Jesus

BELIEF: Jesus was God incarnate.

STATUS: MYTH.

The idea that God came to earth and lived as the man Jesus, which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity, has been around for a long time—but it does not date back to Jesus. Rather, The Encyclopædia Britannica observes: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”

Religion actually degrades Jesus when it teaches that he was God in the flesh. How so? Consider an illustration. Some workers make a request of their supervisor, but he says that he does not have the authority to grant it. If his statement is true, the supervisor has wisely displayed an awareness of his limitations. If it is not true—if he can grant the request but simply chooses not to—he has been deceptive.

Now, how did Jesus respond when two of his apostles desired positions of prominence? He told them: “This sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23) If Jesus were really God, would that not have been a lie? Instead, by deferring to the One with greater authority, Jesus set a beautiful example in modesty—and he showed that he was not equal to God.

Flesh: Insight, Volume 1

Jesus, who was “the Word” of God, “out of heaven,” divested himself of spirit nature and “became flesh.” (Joh 1:1; 1Co 15:47; Php 2:5-8; Joh 1:14; 1Ti 3:16) That in being born as a human he was no spirit and that he did not merely assume a fleshly body, as angels had done in the past (Ge 18:1-3; 19:1; Jos 5:13-15), is attested to by the apostle John, who says that one is antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh.” (1Jo 4:2, 3) In order to provide the ransom for mankind and thereby to help those who would be his associates in the heavenly calling, the Word became flesh, being born all human, no incarnation.

Some people are very cunning in hiding their denial that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh.” (1Jo 4:2, 3)

a reply to: whereislogic
As I said before

As the early church discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity follows on by a reasoning process from the doctrine of the Incarnation.

That's why I write about the Incarnation, not about the Trinity.

For the benefit of other members, it may be worth cross-linking to two other threads.

The Word became flesh
This shows how the doctrine of the Incarnation is founded upon the opening chapter of John's gospel.

Jesus is a man
This shows how the church has always taught the full fleshly humanity of Jesus.

a reply to: DISRAELI
The idea that God came to earth and lived as the man Jesus (otherwise phrased as 'Jesus was God incarnate' and summed up by you as "the Incarnation"), which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity, has been around for a long time—but it does not date back to Jesus.

You are promoting a doctrine (as for example "a balanced understanding") which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity yet seem to want to distance yourself from the Trinity doctrine at the same time (or perhaps some issue with it being pointed out and the origin of the doctrine that you're promoting being at the root of Trinitarianism and Binitarianism). Jesus is not God incarnate and the bible doesn't teach what you refer to as "the Incarnation", it contradicts that teaching. And John 1:1 still doesn't say "and the Word was God" in any honest translation of the bible that isn't biased towards Trinitarianism, Binitarianism and the doctrine that Jesus was God incarnate.