theophiles.org - Beyond the magic: let Jesus be Jesus

Written by laika

Sunday, 06 March 2011 22:38

Opinion, at WaPo:

Why can't we just let Jesus be Jesus?
I'm not close to being a Christian, but I am a person of faith who is quite the Jesus fan. Why? Because this guy, more than anyone I've ever known or heard of, fearlessly lived his relationship with God, the great Whatever. That relationship was his joy and satisfaction; wherever it took him was where he went. He didn't prevaricate or rationalize or temporize when it came to living his faith; he suited up and showed up.

Comments

emperorbma

|2011-03-07 13:34:37

Martha Woodroof wrote:

Because the magical deification stories seem both silly and unnecessary - beginning with Jesus being the hybrid son of Mary and God. Could someone please explain to me what, exactly, that's about? And why it's essential to believe it in order to follow Jesus?

Integrity and consistency...
1. Jesus explicitly claims to be the "fulfillment of the Old Testament." (Matthew 5:17)
2. Moreover, He was given the name Jesus because "He will save his people from their sin." (Matthew 1:21) It's literally what the name means and the entire crux (pun intended) of the mission that Jesus followed.
3. Likewise, in the Old Testament, which Jesus claims to fulfill, it explicitly states that ONLY the Lord God, YHWH, is the savior of Israel. (Isaiah 43:11)

In order for all of these to be true, Jesus must be the incarnate Deity. Consequently, this same reason for the necessity of the doctrine of the Trinity. To suggest anything less is to claim Jesus is simply a charlatan, completely undermining any other salient points you wish to draw from His life by impugning His character. Unlike many, Christians are not content to consider Jesus a prevaricator simply due to political expedience.

The value of His message and the new Life He provides is simply too great to do anything other. As another great Christian said, "Hier stehe ich..."

In short, perhaps one should think about why Christians are doing what they are doing before suggesting we aren't "letting Jesus be Jesus..."

emperorbma - Crossan = "theology of glory"

|2011-03-07 14:01:59

Also, I saw numerous commenters posting about Crossan 's theory of the "divine filicider." This is an outright misrepresentation of facts.

To begin with, yes the Father sent the Son into the world and Christ says, "If it is your Will, may this cup pass from me." However, the Father and the Son are not separate beings, but rather hypostatic persons united in the same God-nature.

The Cross is not about how God sends a random man to die for no reason. Indeed, Christ also says "I lay my life down of my own accord, no man takes it from me." God has taken on our human nature and lived as one of us to bear our sin, personally. It is human sin that causes Jesus to be crucified, not the Father having a death-wish for some random human.

To suggest that God is not suffering on the Cross would, indeed, constitute a travesty. However, no doctrinally orthodox Christian has ever suggested that it was not God suffering. The entire point of the Trinity is that Jesus is, in fact, God bearing our sins through His Living Word...

Today, you see fulfilled Luther's statement that "Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins. Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits... That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the things what it actually is."

How much so is one a "theologian of glory" when one takes the Cross and claims it is evidence against the Father? Instead, as is well known to the theologian of the Cross, it is in love that God is willingly bearing our sins on that Cross.

emperorbma

|2011-03-07 14:52:57

One more thing. What audacity to try to save Jesus from the Church that He, specifically, created!

You know, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matthew 16:18) or "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18) or "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20)

It's like saying, "Yo, Jesus, you made this and now I want to save you from this thing that you, yourself made." Absolutely brilliant idea!

laika - Wonders Unceasing

|2011-03-07 22:42:40

emperorbma wrote:

empy comes out swinging... for Pope Peter?!

emperorbma

|2011-03-08 09:24:23

We Protestants understand this verse a bit differently. The same thing Christ gives to Peter in 16, He gives to the rest of the Apostles in 18. Peter's "rock" is the confession that Christ is the Son of the Living God...

Pro Ecclesia sum, sed cum non Papam...

holmegm - re: Wonders Unceasing

|2011-03-10 10:53:40

emperorbma wrote:

laika wrote:

empy comes out swinging... for Pope Peter?!

I can't escape the notion that Jesus' sense of humor was involved there too ... a humorous double entendre.

"On such 'rocks' as you, Rocko, I build My church."

emperorbma

|2011-03-10 15:14:06

The humor of Jesus is something that we usually lose under the serious undertone of the theology, but something quite real...

metallurge - re:

|2011-03-11 11:18:57

emperorbma wrote:

One more thing. What audacity to try to save Jesus from the Church that He, specifically, created!

I do think the argument is potentially more subtle than that. One must consider the nature of the Church in light of its apparent manifestations. Some of what claims to be Church may not be.

What's also interesting to me is how this question is analyzed differently by the secular. I suspect they see some (not all) planks more clearly than we can.

emperorbma

|2011-03-11 22:25:19

metallurge wrote:

I do think the argument is potentially more subtle than that. One must consider the nature of the Church in light of its apparent manifestations. Some of what claims to be Church may not be.

Well, I think what you're referring to is what I would describe as the "visible" versus the "invisible" Church. Certainly, all of the apparent manifestations are, at best, an admixture of the saved and those who are not. However, despite the apparent forms, the Church itself is still something that Christ created and establishes and preserves through His Word. I'm more speaking of the "communion of saints" than I am of the imperfect manifestations of the Kingdom that we find in the world, though.

The secular world sees only the visible manifestations, not the "outbreak of the Kingdom of God" that occurs as a part of every service. This is, of course, only natural since they are not attuned to the Spirit in the same manner as those of us who are walking with Christ.

laika

|2011-03-07 22:53:12

emperorbma wrote:

In order for all of these to be true, Jesus must be the incarnate Deity. Consequently, this same reason for the necessity of the doctrine of the Trinity. To suggest anything less is to claim Jesus is simply a charlatan, completely undermining any other salient points you wish to draw from His life by impugning His character. Unlike many, Christians are not content to consider Jesus a prevaricator simply due to political expedience.

Isn't it strange that a self-described "Jesus fan" who also believes in the "great Whatever," and recognizes and admires Jesus' devotion to same, would have trouble believing that He (God) would choose to enter our time and space in the way that the doctrine claims. Why come so close just to stop short?

emperorbma - Jefferson gospel

|2011-03-08 13:31:38

Because she's trying to pull a Thomas Jefferson on Jesus. Take the moral teachings without considering the preacher's unusual works and statements about Himself...

metallurge - re: Jefferson gospel

|2011-03-11 11:28:43

Well, the follow-the-moral-teacher method does have a certain pedigree. It is, after all, the road the disciples took.

Apparently, Jesus' moral teachings and works and statements, even his miracles, were not fully sufficient to convince people of his time as to Jesus' divine nature. Witnessing the resurrection seems to have been the matter that truly enlightened people in Jesus' day.

emperorbma

|2011-03-11 21:44:16

Notwithstanding, the concept of Logos was not alien to the Hebrew religion of the time. The Resurrection was, of course, still necessary to bring the Apostles to recognize that Jesus was the manifestation of one and the same.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

On a Wave of Jubilation* (17 May 2013)
Survey: Provo-Orem area most religious in US (07 April 2013)
Shroud of Turin in the news again (29 March 2013)
War on Christmas Heats Up (12 March 2013)
The Next Bible (12 March 2013)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online