|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 23, 2012 9:38:26 GMT -5
Split from: In+his+own+wordsActually, it wasn't until the 4th century CE that the politics of the church decreed that Jesus was essentially the same as God. Prior to that there was spirited debated (before being suppressed) as to the nature of Jesus, his divinity and whether his resurrection was literal or figurative. It may have been the fourth century before the Church codified that Jesus and God was one but its an idea that was expressed at least by the Apostle John in the very first verse of his Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The "Word", of course, being Jesus the Christ. Regardless of the way one wraps their head around the Trinity the Apostle John is on record as saying that Jesus Christ is fully God, not half god/half man. You, of course, overlay your view on the terms used. Without intending affront, I was using terms typically applied to beliefs of a deity impregnating a human, as is done in our culture's description of Greco-Roman Mesopotamian/Egyptian religious stories. I didn't take it as an affront, just a misunderstanding or misstatement of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. I understand that you are free to believe what you will and that you believe that Jesus was just a man who was possibly a remarkable teacher/philosopher but just a man all the same. Still the claim that Jesus was a demi-god does not come from any Christian faith that I know of. Yes, other religions do claim demi-gods in their mythology but applying that term to Christianity is inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on May 23, 2012 10:43:50 GMT -5
Fair enough. I retract the term "demi-god" and accept the citation of John, although subject to different interpretation. However the issue of Jesus' divinity was far from universally accepted, even beyond the adoption of the Nicean creed.
None of which detracts from my original point.
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 23, 2012 10:45:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 23, 2012 11:12:25 GMT -5
I keep being told about articles by Richard Dawkins that are well written and I keep being disappointed in them being nothing but drivel. This article was no exception. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 23, 2012 11:17:09 GMT -5
Fair enough. I retract the term "demi-god" and accept the citation of John, although subject to different interpretation. However the issue of Jesus' divinity was far from universally accepted, even beyond the adoption of the Nicean creed. You will get no argument from me over the divinity of Christ being contested. Even today you will find group after group, some even claiming to be Christian, that will argue that Jesus was a prophet but not divine. I didn't say it did. It was only the use of the term demi-god that I took exception to. It's a mistake that is too often made. |
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 23, 2012 11:23:59 GMT -5
Considering that Christian mythology does not recognize beings called "demi-gods" it is pretty clear that they would not consider Jesus to be one. But if you look at it though a different POV then it could be difficult to make a distinction between Jesus and Promethius or Hercules. In the end you can believe whatever you want on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on May 23, 2012 14:52:57 GMT -5
Exactly, thus my usage. But, as JiT points out, it is not the way Christians describe, so I respect their usage.
However, I do find it disturbing that JiT says that some "claim to be Christian" apparently disenfranchising those who do not accept Jesus as divine and seeming to adhere to the notion that it is belief, not action that is defining, another argument that was squelched at Nicaea. There are, of course, respected theologians who profess themselves Christian who do not subscribe to the notion of divinity.
So, does this thread become: Who is a Christian? I'd be interested in learning what those of you who profess the faith believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 23, 2012 15:55:13 GMT -5
If someone claims to be a Christian I generally accept them at their word. If someone shows me they are a Christian, even if they claim to be an atheist, I will accept them as a brother or sister in Christ. I'm really not too tied to labels when it comes to religion. They are convenient ways to differentiate schools of thought but I doubt if God has much use for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by wheels on May 23, 2012 16:01:51 GMT -5
personally, i believe that truly accepting Jesus as your savior is the only defining act for becoming a Christian. however, it is not my place to judge whether anyone else is a Christian. that judgement lies with God alone.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 23, 2012 19:23:45 GMT -5
Color me Pagan. i do try to lead a life free of "sin", defining sin as not causing hurt or harm to others, basic golden rule stuff here. I will deny the label of "Christian" even if JIT might feel I deserve it. Too many "Christians" have backed themselves into a corner by disregarding this simple but extremely important Rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 23, 2012 22:08:22 GMT -5
Who says the Bible doesn't talk about demi-gods? They are in Genesis, as well as other places.
But, the blanket statement that Jesus was not accepted as God is a fallacious statement. Perhaps one church did not accept that until the 4th century, and there are still others today that do not. However, it was written about in prophecy for millennia before, and was accepted by Pilate. Jesus claimed it. The writers of the New Testament accepted it. The Greek Orthodox Church accepted it from day one. The list goes on and on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 24, 2012 6:19:08 GMT -5
Color me Pagan. i do try to lead a life free of "sin", defining sin as not causing hurt or harm to others, basic golden rule stuff here. We have different definitions of sin. To me sin is anything that separates me from God. Causing harm to others is a symptom of being in a state of sin, IMO. It has nothing to do with what you deserve and everything to do with what you are. Jesus tells us that a tree is known by its fruits a bad tree can't bare good fruits just as a good tree can't bare bad fruits. If all I know about you is that your actions are selflessly being in service to others then you are my brother in Christ. The label of "Christian" or "Pagan" means nothing to me. |
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 24, 2012 7:11:28 GMT -5
After pondering the question for a few years I think the most accepted definition of Christian is "someone who accepts Jesus as their Savior". That seems to be the extent of commonality in the definition.
Meaning the Elohim, Seraphim, or other Cabalistic interpretations? Although they may be in the Bible, I don't think they really enter into "Christian" mythology in any significant way.
|
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 24, 2012 8:00:14 GMT -5
No, the nephilim. That's the very meaning of the word: half-man.
And they figure prominently in the Bible, although many Christians ignore that part.
Mainly because the KJV translators translated it as "giants", and the KJV is what most Christians are familiar with, or has influenced subsequent translations. The Septuagint used the word gigantes, which is the same word that is applied to Hercules, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 24, 2012 8:11:56 GMT -5
There is more to the Bible than there is in what is generally accepted as Christian mythology, and there is a lot more to Christian mythology than the Bible.
How many Christians can tell us much about Nephilim? Wasn't it just a passing reference to the "Fields of the Nephilim" and not really any stories to beck it up?
And really, how much fun would a Tent Meeting be without the influence of Dante and Milton? "Hellfire and brimstone" isn't Biblical but it is a huge element of Christian mythology.
Personally I think the whole Demi-God title makes sense and that Jesus is more like Promethius (I'll take fire over forgiveness any day), but that is not the Christian way to interpret it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 24, 2012 8:35:18 GMT -5
If you want to know more about the nephilim I would suggest looking into the Book of Enoch. He goes into the fall of Satan and the nehilim extensively. While the book is not considered scripture it is referenced in scripture.
Do you want to redefine Buddha while you are at it? How about Krishna?
|
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 24, 2012 9:31:16 GMT -5
I am not attempting to define or redefine anything, just discussing whether or not "demi-god" is an appropriate label to use in the context of Christian mythology.
But considering that "reality" will never get in the way, God can be whatever you want to imagine.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 24, 2012 19:57:04 GMT -5
With all the translations, versions, interpretations, redactions, additions and variations over a couple of millennia the Bible is pretty much meaningless to me.
Justin, I expect your picture appears next to the definition of passive-aggressive in the dictionary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 24, 2012 20:07:09 GMT -5
Possibly. Is that a problem?
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on May 25, 2012 11:47:41 GMT -5
The problem here is there would have to be a god to be a demi-god
|
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 25, 2012 12:28:11 GMT -5
Can we all at least agree to believe in Demi-Moore?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on May 25, 2012 14:01:11 GMT -5
Or Dinty Moore?
|
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on May 25, 2012 16:28:10 GMT -5
GI freakin Jane
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 25, 2012 19:53:46 GMT -5
I believe I'll have another drink.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on May 25, 2012 20:23:41 GMT -5
Or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on May 26, 2012 10:39:12 GMT -5
"Considering that Christian mythology does not recognize beings called "demi-gods" it is pretty clear that they would not consider Jesus to be one."
Where do you get your information from, Grid? Have you not heard the story of David & Goliath? Goliath being one of the spawn from women sleeping with fallen angels?
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on May 26, 2012 10:45:50 GMT -5
"I do find it disturbing that JiT says that some "claim to be Christian" apparently disenfranchising those who do not accept Jesus as divine and seeming to adhere to the notion that it is belief, not action that is defining, another argument that was squelched at Nicaea. There are, of course, respected theologians who profess themselves Christian who do not subscribe to the notion of divinity."
This is not only theologically IMPOSSIBLE, but semantically impossible as well. A "Christian" is one who believes that Jesus' sacrifice as God in the flesh took the place of their own personal sacrifice. It is placing your faith in Jesus and His sacrifice that "saves" an individual and makes them then a "Christian." {Romans 10:9 - If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."}
There is no other way to be saved. You must be a Christian. If you don't accept Christ as divine, you AREN'T and you AREN't.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on May 26, 2012 16:12:55 GMT -5
A true statement, LR's opinion asise.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 26, 2012 19:26:50 GMT -5
I believe I'll have that second drink now.
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on May 27, 2012 8:34:32 GMT -5
There are, of course, respected theologians who profess themselves Christian who do not subscribe to the notion of divinity."
They can call themselves what they like, but by theology & definition they are NOT Christians.
|
|
Actually, it wasn't until the 4th century CE that the politics of the church decreed that Jesus was essentially the same as God. Prior to that there was spirited debated (before being suppressed) as to the nature of Jesus, his divinity and whether his resurrection was literal or figurative.
