Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Jesus always referred to God as "his father". When he died on the cross he referred to being crucified because of the will of "his father". So if Jesus is God it wouldn't make sense because he is talking to himself and crucifying himself!

Jesus is not God per se. He is as close as anyone can get to being God without actually being God. He is as one with God as one can be.

Jesus said "We are all Gods" because we are all born from God and God comes within as standard equipment. Our job is to connect to the God within. Jesus and some other deities did it better than anyone else and they serve as our teachers although people like Boxcar and religions like their own interpretations.

People who have had NDE's say they have met God or Jesus. But they all say Jesus and God are non religious. They do not follow a "set of rules". The one thing they say that God and Jesus do follow is unconditional Divine love.

Quote the passage wherein you allege that scripture teaches "we are all gods".

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

Jesus always referred to God as "his father". When he died on the cross he referred to being crucified because of the will of "his father". So if Jesus is God it wouldn't make sense because he is talking to himself and crucifying himself!

Jesus is not God per se. He is as close as anyone can get to being God without actually being God. He is as one with God as one can be.

Jesus said "We are all Gods" because we are all born from God and God comes within as standard equipment. Our job is to connect to the God within. Jesus and some other deities did it better than anyone else and they serve as our teachers although people like Boxcar and religions like their own interpretations.

People who have had NDE's say they have met God or Jesus. But they all say Jesus and God are non religious. They do not follow a "set of rules". The one thing they say that God and Jesus do follow is unconditional Divine love.

And let's not forget that Jesus, on the night of his arrest, asked God if he could be spared of the ordeal which awaited him...and he also called out "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" as he was dying on the cross...which translates to "God...why have you forsaken me?" Was he merely talking to himself...and accusing himself of abandonment?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Quote the passage wherein you allege that scripture teaches "we are all gods".

In Jn 10:34, Jesus cites Ps 82:6.

Despite the layers of meaning, at minimum Jesus can appeal to rabbinic literalism to avoid the charge of blasphemy.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Quote the passage wherein you allege that scripture teaches "we are all gods".

John 10:34 King James Version (KJV)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

which is referenced in

John 10:34-35, where Jesus quotes
Psalm 82 verse 6
I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you"

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In Jn 10:34, Jesus cites Ps 82:6.

Despite the layers of meaning, at minimum Jesus can appeal to rabbinic literalism to avoid the charge of blasphemy.

Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. There are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as [B]"children of the LORD your God"

In a Kaballiastic sense...Kabbalah is an ancient series of mystical teachings there is a strong view the Lord of the Universe is mirrored within as the Lord of each individual.

Kabbalah sees the human soul as mirroring the Divine (after Genesis 1:27, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them")

So "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" is symbolic not "rabbinic literalism"

Unfortunately literal biblical Christianity does not really understand their own roots, Judaism. The Christian messiah just a retelling of this inner symbol in a new form.

Many religions and myths are variations on the same truth

[hcap]

Anthropomorphism in Kabbalah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthro...sm_in_Kabbalah

Kabbalah, the central system in Jewish mysticism, uses subtle anthropomorphic analogies and metaphors to describe God in Judaism. These include male-female influences in the Divine.

Kabbalists repeatedly warn and stress the need to divorce their notions from any corporeality, dualism, plurality, or spatial and temporal connotations. As "the Torah speaks in the language of Man",[1] the empirical terms are necessarily imposed upon man's experience in this world. Once the analogy is described, its limitations are then related to, stripping the kernel of its husk, to arrive at a truer conception.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

John 10:34 King James Version (KJV)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

which is referenced in

John 10:34-35, where Jesus quotes
Psalm 82 verse 6
I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you"

Okay, let's take this one step at a time. How do you extrapolate from those passages that all men are gods?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In Jn 10:34, Jesus cites Ps 82:6.

Despite the layers of meaning, at minimum Jesus can appeal to rabbinic literalism to avoid the charge of blasphemy.

Soo....you believe Jesus' appeal to Ps 82:6 is to be understood literally? If so, how do you reconcile such literal interpretation with Isa 44:8 45:5, 14-18, 21-22; 46:9; Deut4:35, 39;32:39;1Ki 8:60; Joel 2:27? All of these teaching that there is no other God except the Lord God.

Perhaps "at minimum" your understanding of Jn 10:34 needs to be rethought?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. There are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as [B]"children of the LORD your God"

In a Kaballiastic sense...Kabbalah is an ancient series of mystical teachings there is a strong view the Lord of the Universe is mirrored within as the Lord of each individual.
So "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" is symbolic not "rabbinic literalism"

Unfortunately literal biblical Christianity does not really understand their own roots, Judaism. The Christian messiah just a retelling of this inner symbol in a new form.

Many religions and myths are variations on the same truth

My use of "literalism" in the sense that the Jesus' contemporary audience would have understood "gods" per Ps. 82, as being restored to "image and likeness" via the reception of the Torah at Sinai, resulting in holiness and ultimately deathlessness. I'm not referring to "physical descent" at all, nor a "literalistic" reading of Ps. 82, but I had difficulty conveying the difference previously. Literal = the intended sense of the author, which can be metaphor, etc. Literalistic = the meaning the actual words suggest (not metaphoric or allegoric).

Your philosophical preference for esoteric interpretation does not make your last sentence a fact.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Soo....you believe Jesus' appeal to Ps 82:6 is to be understood literally? If so, how do you reconcile such literal interpretation with Isa 44:8 45:5, 14-18, 21-22; 46:9; Deut4:35, 39;32:39;1Ki 8:60; Joel 2:27? All of these teaching that there is no other God except the Lord God.

Perhaps "at minimum" your understanding of Jn 10:34 needs to be rethought?

See my #1299.

The difference between "participating in the divine nature" (2 PT 1:4) through grace, and possessing the nature of God (Christ Incarnate).

A better conversation would treat the discussion regarding the former, i.e., theosis/divinization. Infused grace vs. imputed grace.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

My use of "literalism" in the sense that the Jesus' contemporary audience would have understood "gods" per Ps. 82, as being restored to "image and likeness" via the reception of the Torah at Sinai, resulting in holiness and ultimately deathlessness. I'm not referring to "physical descent" at all, nor a "literalistic" reading of Ps. 82, but I had difficulty conveying the difference previously. Literal = the intended sense of the author, which can be metaphor, etc. Literalistic = the meaning the actual words suggest (not metaphoric or allegoric).

Your philosophical preference for esoteric interpretation does not make your last sentence a fact.

I am using analogy and metaphor along the lines that mystics of many religions. I referenced Kabbalah as the Jewish version.

A "son of god" represent the profound workings of the universe without,...... mirrored within. The word God sometimes stands for the universe. A "messiah" is a common theme in both Judaism and Christianity originally meant internally, not externally. A particular Son who can set the internal order right.

The problem as I see it is confusing the internal for the external. Literalism often leads to that confusion.

Jesus' contemporary audience were of a mixed lot. In fact metaphor and analogy were strong in Judaism. Kabbalah is a continuation of those concepts. The origins of Kabbalah are ancient. Yes esoteric

Jewish Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between God, the unchanging, eternal, and the mortal and finite universe (God's creation) It forms the foundation of mystical religious interpretations within Judaism.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God.

How can any human being physically descend from God since God is not a physical being?

There are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as [B]"children of the LORD your God"

Cite the passages that involve these two Jewish kings.

In a Kaballiastic sense...Kabbalah is an ancient series of mystical teachings there is a strong view the Lord of the Universe is mirrored within as the Lord of each individual.
So "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" is symbolic not "rabbinic literalism"

Unfortunately literal biblical Christianity does not really understand their own roots, Judaism. The Christian messiah just a retelling of this inner symbol in a new form.

The Pot calling the Kettle black. Tell me: Does context ever mean anything to you?

Who exactly are the" gods" in v. 6? Every human being on the planet? All Israel? Or just certain Israelites?

And who are the "gods" in v.1?

Many religions and myths are variations on the same truth

How convenient. So how are we to know which myth or variation is true?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How convenient. So how are we to know which myth or variation is true?

Study comparative religions and world myths and legends.

Without diminishing and rejecting them first.
How do you know your version is any truer than someone else's?
Which is what you always claim.

Your ego appears so monstrous, it allows others no possibility of being correct.

Do you remember the first Indian story I told you?

It is a story of a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Question. What if instead of fighting about who is right, they compared note???

By studying other blind men's tales , some glimmers of truth may come through, not able to be seen by only one man.

Learning other religion, and myths and legends can help

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Study comparative religions and world myths and legends.

Without diminishing and rejecting them first.
How do you know your version is any truer than someone else's?
Which is what you always claim.

Your ego appears so monstrous, it allows others no possibility of being correct.

Do you remember the first Indian story I told you?
Question. What if instead of fighting about who is right, they compared note???

By studying other blind men's tales , some glimmers of truth may come through, not able to be seen by only one man.

Learning other religion, and myths and legends can help

Answer my questions. You don't answer the questions yet you presume to cite scripture!?

Who are the "gods" in Ps 82:6?

a.) Everyone in the whole world.

b.) All Israelities

c.) A certain class of Israelites;

d.] Illegal aliens.

e. The surrounding heathen nations of ancient Israel.

WHO!?

And secondly, who are the "gods" in v. 1 of this Psalm?

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay, let's take this one step at a time. How do you extrapolate from those passages that all men are gods?

If your physical being is born of a human being then you are human in the physical. Likewise if your spirit is born of God (which there is no other possibility) then you are God, in spirit.

Furthermore, our true selves is not human. That is temporary and will die. Our true selves is God, and that is eternal.