From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:50:36 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov14.162532.3606@unixland.natick.ma.us> squirrel@unixland.natick.ma.us (Publius) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> 
>> Then, Jesus can not be the son of God.
>
>Why not?  Maybe not according to your Greek notion of 'son of God'.  But
>certainly is according to the Hebrew notion of 'Son of God', as I have
>explain in the previous post.
>
>> 
>> >> ... Presumably, Jesus being of God and Mary
>> >>	is part human, part God, hence demi-God.
>> >No!  Jesus is FULLY God, yet at the same time also TRULY human.
>> 
>> Then there can be no difference between God and human. We are all God.
>
>Why?  
>
>> Oh? Adam was not refered to as the son of God, nor Moses.
>
>Don't remember Moses was ever referred to as 'son of God'.  I think he
>was referred to as 'man of God'.  Adam was only referred to as 'son
>of God' in Luke, and the context in Luke made it clear that Luke was
>refering to the fact that Adam derived his life from God.  In the OT,
>angels were sometimes referred to as 'sons of God', and in the NT,
>Christians were also referred to as 'sons of God'.  These usages
>should be understood in the sense of 'derivation of life'.
>
>The uniqueness of Messiah as the 'Son of God' is clear in the Bible,
>for He was also referred to as the 'Only Begotten'.  In Him alone
>dwells the FULLNESS of the Deity.
>
>> Sounds like more contradicting Paulist doctrine to me. How can the son of
>> God be God at the same time? And how can God die on the cross? And ...
>
>Why not? unless you use the pagan Greek framework, instead of the Hebrew
>framework.
>
>> >PS: I plan to a take a break from my Usenet activities for a few
>> >    weeks.  I deserve a nice and tranquil vacation!
>> 
>> Not so quick!
>
>Why not?  See you again on the net after the Thanksgiving holidays.
>
>Regards,
>-- 
>For Christ and His Kingdom
>-- Publius
>Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.

The argument over whether Christ or the Gospels or Paul state authoritatively
that Christ was the Son of God is less interesting than the way in which
Christ himself approached the issue.  He tended to put it in the form of
a question, which the individual must answer for himself.  "But who do
you say that I am?"  To Pilate he said, "You say it" (i.e. I cannot say
it for you.  It can only come from your own being).

This leaves the issue open from a dogmatic point of view for those who
would say that he never claimed directly to be the Son of God.  But it
also leaves the possibility open that each individual may at some time
say it, not out of acceptance of dogmatic assertion, but out of actual
experience, much as Peter did, and as Paul did on the road to Damascus.

Paul gave his testimony not as iron doctrine to be accepted but as the
passionate testimony of one who had seen for himself.  To this testimony
he dedicated his life and his mind and his talents, and suffered much.

The question of who Christ is must be wrestled with by each person
individually.  Some will find it easy to not ask, others will question
long and deeply.  The realization grows, sometimes slowly, and sometimes
it can come suddenly.  But I contend that it is fundamentally not a
matter that can be proven.  In this one thing above all, not his teachings
or his commandments, but in the recognition of who he really is, I believe
that Christ has left every human being utterly free.  By not understanding
this, fundamentalists - who do indeed have the one thing needful for them-
selves - put a roadblock in front of many who may well be seeking him.
And they also put a roadblock in front of themselves, for the knowledge
of Christ never stops growing, unless it becomes reduced to the dead letter
of a dogmatic assertion.

Another difficulty with the fundamentalist (and also main stream) view of 
Christ is the idea that knowledge and acceptance of him can only come 
within the bounds of this one life on earth.  The more I read and 
participate in this forum the more convinced I become that Christianity 
needs desparately to come to terms with the reality of repeated earth 
lives, and destiny (karma) as fundamental to the central principles of
Christianity, in other words to understand it in terms of the reality
of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc