Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

[_AlmaBound]

No problem Ray.

I think the idea is supported by John as well:

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Simply, if God is love, and we are commanded to love by the law, then it must be God that loves in and through us in order to fulfill the law.

Nathan arguing with David about there being no need for a temple made by human hands can be seen as supported by the idea that our purpose here is to serve as a temple for the living God, a dwelling place for love.

[_Ray A]

We do not have the original Q-Sayings of Jesus and this particular
Gospel of Thomas logion has a much different form in Matthew and Mark.

So -- if we go by the gnostic overlay of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,
the logical answer would be: "We are all God in our true selves. Jesus
just came to that realization before most of the rest of us."

Stripping off the gnostic overlay, and trying to get back to the original
oral tradition -- Mark must be close to the actual message. There Jesus
denies being the Davidic Messiah and berates Peter for claiming him as such.

Problem is, that Mark has added to the original tradition, and we must go
back even before Mark, to arrive at an answer that would merit utter
disbelief and stoning in a pious Jewish context.

My guess is -- "I am not the Messiah -- You are communing with YHWH himself.
And you, also are YHWH."

That would be enough to throw even a kabbalahist into a tizzy.

UD

I'm fine with that. John 10:34-6.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

[_AlmaBound]

I'm fine with that. John 10:34-6.

Personally I think those verses should be read within the context of the surrounding verses.

For example, the story begins with Jesus saying that He and his Father were one, which drew their response of attempting to stone him. And then he asked why they were going to stone him, for which work he showed them from his Father.

And they said it was not because of the works, but because he claimed to be God.

I think Jesus then explains the quote "ye are gods" and describes how people can be one with God and from where the works come.

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Mormonism, from at least D&C 130, seems to explicitly deny the notion of God indwelling a person, explaining it as a "sectarian notion":

D&C 130:3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

In this sense, what I read as biblical Christianity and Mormonism appear to be irreconcilable, in their respective explanations and understanding of from where the works, presumably including those required by the law, originate.

[_truth dancer]

Hi UD,

My guess is -- "I am not the Messiah -- You are communing with YHWH himself.
And you, also are YHWH."

Makes sense to me!



Namaste,

~td~

[_Uncle Dale]

Hi UD,

My guess is -- "I am not the Messiah -- You are communing with YHWH himself.
And you, also are YHWH."

Makes sense to me!



Namaste,

~td~

Yeah -- but it is the most problematic precept of mystical religion.

People hear it (or worse yet, say it) within the context of their own egos.
Try and tell people that before they can realize their shared divinity, they
first of all must renounce it entirely.

Doesn't make much sense -- outside of a psych-ward, or an ashram.

UD

[_karl61]

I'm not sure if Jesus said any of those words. Look at the culture and beliefs of the authors who really wrote those gospels who really remain unknown. The end of the world was upon them - Rome was kicking butt and taking names later. Jesus was going to return, kick some butt himself and usher in peace and prosperity.

But if you define a follower of God by the almost impossible standard given on the mount, the last real Christian died on the Cross.

The Church does not excommunicate women who obtain a legal divorce and remarry but here Christ is reportedly saying if a woman remarries then she commits adultery. The guys are always given a way out - if she is not a virgin then you can divorce her but women can never remarry if divorced because of what is written.

I would say maybe Monks or Nuns could follow the sermon on the mount - but an everyday soccer mom - I wonder.

[_Jason Bourne]

Ray

I see little conflict between the passages and article of faith. It is easy to cheery pick and compare and contrast.

[_mledbetter]

...

For some reason, your OP title reminded me of a surprised Eminem and Sacha Cohen (Bruno) descending out of the sky with angel wings.

Nevermind, youtube it.

[_The Nehor]

Jesus said, "Whom do men say that I am?"

And his disciples answered and said, "Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets."

And Jesus answered and said, "But whom do you say that I am?"

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

[_karl61]

Jesus said, "Whom do men say that I am?"

And his disciples answered and said, "Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets."

And Jesus answered and said, "But whom do you say that I am?"

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

that's sort of bizarre - the real thing to do is keep God simple like the Jews did as one being who blessed them or allowed others to kick their butt.

Nehor, are you any relation to Brigham Young as he too went out on a limb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-God_theory