An honest question for Christians

[Wernazuma III]

Wow, lots of posts coming. Nice to see that the topic interests people. Before I get more detailed on some posts here, I think I have to clarify some things.

At first, I know about Arianism and personally think such a Christology is much more convincing in this point at least.
Yet Arianism has died out, was erradicated more or less peacefully and labeled as heresy.
I also know that some early gnostic sects had very weird ideas about the manhood or divinity of Christ, although I'm not familiar with the details.
What I rather want to know is how you Christians here deal with it, whether you find the positions of your churches convincing and what they are. I know something about the early christians (not too much either though), but I'm very unfamiliar on how Christians deal with it for themselves. I'm not seeking spiritual guidance or something like someone here supposed. That's why I don't ask a local priest.

I don't understand why Apocalypse - who claims to be not even Christian - seems to be the only one to question my honesty and thinks I'm annoying.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You should have a look at "The Last Temptation of Christ", a film based on the book by a Greek writer, whose name escapes me - Karantzakis (sp?).

It presents Jesus as a figure riven by self doubt and loathing for his "mission", resisting it at every step ebfore succumbing to the inevitable. Presents quite a plausible alternative view of Jesus, in some ways more satisfying than the "super confident" and always "in control" Jesus presented by the Christian churches.

Its also presents Jesus as fully human in the sense that his mission only slowly dawns upon or is thrust upon him. Contrast this with the "all knowing" Christ child.

Of course this view of Jesus was denounced by all the main religions.

[Elok]

Well, was my answer okay w/ you? Looking back, it seems a little obtuse to me, but was that the kind of response you're looking for?

[Plan Austral]

Wernazuma, well, Jehova Witnesses would be modern day arians, they do not accept the trinity, they say that Jesus was the first creation of God and that God created all other things through Jesus, sometimes they identifie Jesus as the Archangel Gabriel.
They say that the holy spirit is not God but the force of God acting in us, something like magnetism..
They are fans of historical revisionism, they portray Arius as the good guy and Ambrosius as the apostate.

The oriental churches (oriental, is not the same as eastern/orthodox), like the coptic church of Egypt are monophisites, they accept the trinity but they deny the humanity in Jesus, they say he was fully and only God.
In my opinion this heresy damaged the most christianity, the Pope of Alexandria was very mad at the other patriarchs in the apostolic cities and christianity was quite divided because of it, this division helped a lot the muslims when they started their conquest..

The only nestorian church I know nowadays is the Assyrian church, they accept the trinity but they separate completely the divinity and humanity in Jesus, they would say something like there are two persons in christ, one divine and one human.

Most of the christians in the world protestants, catholics and orthodox/eastern believe in the trinity and that Jesus was 100% God and 100% Human, not separated.

In the USA some pentecostal churches believe in modalism, that is there is only one God, and sometimes he shows himself as Jesus, as Jehova or as the holy spirit.

I believe in the orthodox doctrine.

I find you annoying

[TheStinger]

Do you think Jesus wanted this debate over what he was or wasn't

[Wernazuma III]

Elok: Sure, every answer is valid. I want to know how people sove the thing for themselves, not in the end pointing with the finger at anyone saying: "But your opinion is not consistent, nananananana." It's surely something to think of for Christians though, that's it.

TheStinger: You state exactly what I also think about the dogmatic quarrels that arose around Christology. How could the question about Christ's nature divide whole churches and cause them to accuse each other to be heretic? Shouldn't the message be the most important thing?

[Plan Austral]

In my opinion for being a christian you have to believe in at least 2 contradictions, God is one and God is three, and Jesus is 100% human and 100% God.
All at the same time.

[Zero]

Actually there are more contradictions.

The classical "Can God create a weight that he cannot lift, If he is is a God who can do anything". It's pure playing around with human logics... One would expect that person who is omnipotent can do anything... then can he do something that will prove his inability? Its a trap. You cant answer yes to both of them.

I didnt really pay attention to stuff in church so I cant answer it, but Im sure its some kinda lame evasive answer along the lines of you cant reason god's ability withing human mind because he is beyond human logic. (So yes Chritians should be saying yes to both of them in my example!)

As far as I know, Christ is a bridge between man and God. Therefore he is both God and man. He's not like 50% god 50% man either. He is fully both.

Bottomline. If you're a beleiver you answer to yourself that God can do things that are beyond human logic, therefor no questioning about petty stuff is necessary. If you're not a beleiver, you dont bother asking question about some deity that isnt legitimate to begin with for you anyway. So problem solved.


I dont mean to put down other people's belief by saying that their religion requires absolute acceptance of something bizzare w/o questioning... Their arguement is legitiamte if it is true. Its kinda like teaching a child Physics. They may not have the mathematical skill necessary to understand how certain equations are derived. They just have to accept it.

So if you believe in it good for you. If not good for you too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you think Jesus wanted this debate over what he was or wasn't?

TheStinger:

I think that Jesus would rather people debated over him rather than ignoring him altogether. The purpose of the debate will be to provide valid evidence as to the existence of Christ, not only convincing those who are not Christians, but also reinforcing those who are Christians.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TheStinger

Of course this view of Jesus was denounced by all the main religions.

Sure, the Hierarchies huffed and puffed about aspects of the book and film, particularly the way it undermined the "superhuman" official Jesus and dared to show Jesus having a sexuality and natural sexual desires as opposed to the official "asexual" Jesus, but Nikos Kazantzakis's book has been very influential. It presents in many ways a Christ for our times. A Christ people can relate to. A human Christ.

The part I liked best was when he hears the thundering foot steps of the heavenly host following every step of his own and tells them to sod off That would be annoying

The most moving part was where assasins come to kill Lazarus because he is living proof that a man can be raised from the dead.

Here is an article about it. Note that the book has been used in seminaries.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/iannone.html

[Ben Kenobi]

"but the teaching at Catholic schools placed such an emphasis on the divine side that if Jesus walked into a room, you'd know he was God because he glowed in the dark," instead of being someone "you could sit down with, have dinner or a drink with."



Good post, AH.

[Alexander's Horse]

This view of unreal view of Jesus is not of course confined to catholicism.

[mactbone]

What bothered me is that God deliberately adds the Tree of Knowledge in the first place. "I'm an omniscient being, so I'll put a tree here that I don't want anyone to mess with." Then, to top it off he tells Adam not to eat it. Anyone see the logic problem? That's like me putting a kid in a room with candy and telling them to eat all they want - except for the Skittles. Huh?

I also think it's weird that Jesus talks to God - they're the same guy, right? Not only that, but Jesus obviously isn't omniscient - he asks for guidance. "Hello brain - should I go to class today or not?"

[Plan Austral]

Jesus, the Father and the holy spirit are God, it is possible for Jesus to talk to the father because Jesus has a personality of his own..
I think I recall reading somwhere that God is what happen between the Son and the Father in the Spirit.
That is rather complicated, because that would make God an action and not a being..

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MacTBone
What bothered me is that God deliberately adds the Tree of Knowledge in the first place. "I'm an omniscient being, so I'll put a tree here that I don't want anyone to mess with." Then, to top it off he tells Adam not to eat it. Anyone see the logic problem? That's like me putting a kid in a room with candy and telling them to eat all they want - except for the Skittles. Huh?

I've always had a problem with that too