h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here's a thought for a Sunday...which you may like to discuss or dump

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Jesus Christ is God. It says Jesus Christ is Lord.

No difference, you say?

Actually, in the parlance of the times when the New Testament was written,there's a big, big difference! In those days the Jewish folk viewed God (which they didn't name) as having ten distinct aspects - akin to the ten commandments. The whole of God was made up from all those ten aspects.

Lord (Adonai)was the aspect of God which came closest to mankind - the place of the Messiah, where the Anointed was in direct contact with the rest of God. However, to be 'Lord' was possible for all humanity (even for a nanosecond in a lifetime) as it meant being fully-realised.

That place in the cosmic heirarchy is also known as Shekinah or 'The Daughter of the Voice' and is sometimes said to be the feminine aspect of God - being the most accessible part to all humanity, it was the part that gave birth to souls and received them back into the heavens after death. In a nutshell, it's not so big that it's scary - wherease the whole of God makes Douglas Adams definition of the size of the universe look minimalist.

One of the reasons why Christianity and Judaism haven't got on is that the interpretation of Jesus being ALL of God as opposed to the Son/child of God is seen by those with ancient knowledge as a basic misunderstanding of Truth - and even a blasphemy.

If you can understand that Jesus is Lord, it does help understand that God is wider than just being a Deity who believes in Christianity and one which encompasses all people; all beliefs and all religions. It also means that Buddha, Krishna, Esther, Mohammad and other great souls could also have touched that place and been Adonai in their lifetimes.

>Here's a thought for a Sunday...which you may like to discuss or
>dump

>Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Jesus Christ is God.
>It says Jesus Christ is Lord.

Um...I'd refer you to John 20:28-29; John 1:1-18; and Philippians 2:5 - 11. Not an exhaustive list, by any means, but they're all pretty clear that the early church considered Jesus to be God.

David.

Hooray! Hello! No need for the 'um'!

You are quite right (in a way) - I put my point too generally. I do tend to do that and it's good to be pulled up on it.

I would never doubt for a moment that the Early Church from the second century onwards believed that Jesus was God. No doubt at all. I would, however, dispute that the very early church did - although the gentiles may well have done because they didn't have a grounding in religious belief of the time. Paul, however, did have that grounding.

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers.

I also have no doubt that Jesus was Messiah. But that's just my faith and I don't have a problem if others disagree (I think!!).

However, I will re-work my point more accurately now...and I'm afraid I'm going to get a bit academic...

John 20, 28 is Thomas saying 'My Lord and my God'. The word God is Theos in the NT Greek; this is commonly used to refer to The One. However, to my knowledge, it is not used in that fashion when it includes the personal pronoun - eg 'my'. It was also in common usage at the time in referring to 'representative of The One', 'Aspect of the One' or even 'Lord' as in master, judge, very high teacher. It could also mean 'a god' as in a lesser god.

Now I realise that this is pure semantics and it is entirely possible that Thomas thought Jesus was God but it cannot be said to be certain. The English translations of Koine (NT Greek) are very varied - and there are 5000 different versions in the 'original Greek'.

At that point, we may as well all go home because we are never going to get a definitive version!

However, for the sake of argument let's assume that Theos does mean the One God only. So, you win on that point.

Philppians 2:5-11 seems fair enough on first reading but if you go on to 2:11 you read that if continues by saying 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' So why is Paul using the different word, Kurios at that point, when he could use Theos just as well?

If Paul truly believed that Jesus was ALL of God rather than an aspect of God, he would surely write Iesous Xristos eis Theos. Instead, he writes: kurios Iesous Xristos eis doxan theou patros (literally translated) 'Lord Jesus Christ towards the glory of God.

If you know the theology of the times (as Paul did), you'll know that the concept of the One God was divided into ten aspects, each one representing a holy attribute. 'Lord' meant 'Messiah - one linked to the wholeness of God but also human.' It was at the holy place of shekhinah, the part of God which touched humanity and gave birth to life. A very important part of the One. The Hebrew term literally translated is 'The Malkhut (Kingdom)of Azilut (the Son of God/perfected human being).'

Back to the rest of the Philippians that you quote, it simply says that Jesus was one with God. Fine. Being one with God is not the same as being ALL of God. A drop of water is one with the rest of the ocean.

The next bit says 'In the form of God.' Fine, no argument with that. You can be in the form of God without being ALL of God. Equality with God - ditto. All the aspects of Godhead (of which Kurios - Lord) is one are in the form of God and have equality with God.

I suspect I've either lost you or irritated you immensely by this point - but what I'm trying to say is that Christian doctrine is nowadays interpreted without recourse to the religious knowledge of the times. They had very definite rules and definitions which we do not use today. To comment on the NT without that knowledge is really quite dangerous in my view and, I believe, in the view of many theologians and scholars who know 1000 times more than I do.

Finally, John 1 1-18. I have a colleague who has written a whole book on the prologue of John and, in a nutshell, there's nothing there to say that Jesus is God. The Logos (Word)P is not the whole of The One; it is an expression of the One. The part that touches the earth - ie the Malkhut of Azilut. The voice of God if you like - the creative impulse.

Obviously, you and I are coming from different points of reference but we both have equal validity of views. I've got no problem with anyone believing that Jesus is God. However, the danger with that belief is that it can lead to the thought that only a Christian can be saved. And I don't believe in that!

Thanks for bearing with me (if you have!)

Hello everybody,
I'd like to join this conversation if i may. I love Jesus Christ and all that he stands for.
Now you may ask, What does he stand for. In my opinion he stands for self expresssion. Hence the question posed to the first Apostles; "Who do you say that i am?"
I view this question as an invitation, not a challenge. Do we see God when we see Christ? do we see an imposter, the messiah, an alien? Our relationship with God, with God's son, our relationship with our very selves can be answered by our answer to Christ's question.
What would we do if someone showed up claiming to be God? How would we treat such a person? It shall happen again, and indeed has happened already.
T-Gyuid

Hello!

I see Jesus as an icon, not an idol. A window to God and a way of understanding humanity and divinity.

Jesus is just this guy, you know?