Guest guest Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 , " danny weaver " <cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > Guess we did not understand problem here when I wrote, sorry, and we are not in Sahaja Yoga anymore, so should have been quiet, but we do know that LOVE is strongest of All. We need more love in the world. all would go so nicely that way. We thought that is was someone misinformed, but no actually think it is someone wanting a revenge to your group. We may not be IN the group now but certainly would never mean harm to anyone, as we love all. You were all nice to us, while we were in group, we just do not see Shri Mataji as > GOD, that is all. If we are wrong, then God is our Judge ( or as you feel, Shri mataji) But we all do best we can, as we see. > > Dear Danny, Shri Mataji is not God Almighty although some SYs say that often privately. This is a false belief, a misconception that actually confuses those who believe so. Even Shri Mataji never made that statement that you too believed once, and have since rejected. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi is the physical incarnation of the Adi Shakti (Holy Spirit) sent to deliver the Divine Message of the Resurrection and Last Judgment. The Comforter had to come in human form because otherwise it would have been impossible for humans to understand and participate in it. Please understand this thoroughly. The Holy Spirit is within yourself and every human being. God Almighty is also present within all as the Light above Her in the Sahasrara (Kingdom of God). That is why paintings of great souls and the prophets show a halo of Light around their heads. Every religion show the same in their paintings. Maybe this will throw some light on the issue, no pun intended. regards, jagbir BTW, my computer has gone for repairs till next week and i cannot elaborate on this very important issue. Hope this brief answer on a borrowed laptop will be sufficient to correct the misconception that Shri Mataji is God. Danny, feel free to question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Dear Jagbir, Thank you for explaining. See as taught in the Protestant faith I was brought up in the Three are one... as you must have heard. So that is why it is hard to understand how God is seperate from Holy Spirit, but think you see Holy Spirit as Feminine form? ( LIke God equals Father, Holy Spirit equals Mother and Son ( Jesus) the Son?) See that is why it has been hard. But I see I think what you mean and God is Over Shri Mataji as the Holy Spirit? ( Everyone was great, do not get me wrong, and we had great friends, and times, of course. Some even stayed with us in our home, will not elaborate on this now, and we were like sisters ( this is now Danny's wife talking) and they taught me much, and I got to have a special meet with Shri Mataji, which was an honor as she certainly did not need to do that, and when she was ready to see me, which took DAYS,,,, the WIND BLEWm it LOOKIED LIKE RAIN and people had to scurry to move furniture in doors, and rainbow came into the sky, everyone was surprised, and phone rang and they said, " She is ready to See you now " Thanks for taking time to speak to us, about this. We have now gone to an Orthodox Church and ( Christian) not Jewish, and actually some similarities exist. ( Back to wind blowing , well the word in Hebrew believe for wind is SPIRIT....) Yes do believe the second coming is not far off, we sure see all the SIGNS....It will be wonderful, when the day is here. We ourselves can make Heaven on earth if the Spirit Of God is in US, Correct? We can make it as we have choice, on way or the other, you know how I mean? That is why sahaji's try to keep mind on Sahasrara Chakra, from my understanding. ( Crown Chakra) Jai Shri Mataji > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org > > > We just do not see Shri Mataji as GOD, >that is all >Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:30:35 -0000 > > , " danny weaver " ><cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > > > Guess we did not understand problem here when I wrote, sorry, and >we are not in Sahaja Yoga anymore, so should have been quiet, but we >do know that LOVE is strongest of All. We need more love in the >world. all would go so nicely that way. We thought that is was >someone misinformed, but no actually think it is someone wanting a >revenge to your group. We may not be IN the group now but certainly >would never mean harm to anyone, as we love all. You were all nice >to us, while we were in group, we just do not see Shri Mataji as > > GOD, that is all. If we are wrong, then God is our Judge ( or as >you feel, Shri mataji) But we all do best we can, as we see. > > > > > >Dear Danny, > >Shri Mataji is not God Almighty although some SYs say that often >privately. This is a false belief, a misconception that actually >confuses those who believe so. Even Shri Mataji never made that >statement that you too believed once, and have since rejected. > >Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi is the physical incarnation of the Adi >Shakti (Holy Spirit) sent to deliver the Divine Message of the >Resurrection and Last Judgment. The Comforter had to come in human >form because otherwise it would have been impossible for humans to >understand and participate in it. Please understand this thoroughly. > >The Holy Spirit is within yourself and every human being. God >Almighty is also present within all as the Light above Her in the >Sahasrara (Kingdom of God). That is why paintings of great souls and >the prophets show a halo of Light around their heads. Every religion >show the same in their paintings. Maybe this will throw some light >on the issue, no pun intended. > >regards, > > >jagbir > >BTW, my computer has gone for repairs till next week and i cannot >elaborate on this very important issue. Hope this brief answer on a >borrowed laptop will be sufficient to correct the misconception that >Shri Mataji is God. Danny, feel free to question. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Jagbir, I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are one and the same; there is no difference between the moon and its light. I mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God almighty, in some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is the eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I don't understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to me from a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light are inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, though the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be seen and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is both its object and its light, unable to be anything different. Any help would be good. Kyyan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Dear Kyyan, There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. The Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from the moon and hence one and the same. However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti is the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to concur to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. This thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for rejecting their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity too. According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is His Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are teaching their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic religions. regards, jagbir , " v_koa " <v_koa> wrote: > > Jagbir, > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are one and > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its light. I > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God almighty, in > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is the > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I don't > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to me from > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light are > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, though > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be seen > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is both its > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > Any help would be good. > > Kyyan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Dear Jagbir, How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and the ONLY one that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, if not a portion of God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this is his wife. You see that can be confusing as Jesus does not sound like JUST ONE of the other prophets, you see. Anotherwords, you feel that ANY of them including Shri Mataji could have died on the cross and saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji herself clam to be a portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of this day? What does SHE say on the matter? Earnestly questioning. Jai Shri Mataji God Bless, Carol > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org > > > Re: We just do not see Shri Mataji as GOD, >that is all >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > >Dear Kyyan, > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. The >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from the >moon and hence one and the same. > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti is >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to concur >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. This >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for rejecting >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity too. > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is His >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are teaching >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic >religions. > >regards, > > >jagbir > > , " v_koa " <v_koa> >wrote: > > > > Jagbir, > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are one and > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its light. I > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God almighty, in > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is the > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I don't > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to me >from > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light are > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, though > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be >seen > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is both its > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Dear Carol, I will try and answer this as I also strugled with this. I think Jesus is the Son of God. He came to show us the way we should live. I believe we are able to do all the things Jesus did if we have faith. I believe Jeus died on the cross to show that we also must die and then resurected also just like he was. Jesus said we must look within to find the Kingdom of God. Once I become my higher self, then I become one with God or connected. This is my resurection. I also believe we are reincarnated until we get it (realized)and become one with God. The higher self. Everything and everyone comes from God. This includes Jesus. Read the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ and you will have a better understanding. Chapter 8 Jesus said, If you would ask me what to study I would say, yourselves; and when you well had studied them, and then would ask me what to study next, I would reply ypurselves. He who knows well his lower self, knows the illusions of the world, knows of the things that pass away; and he who knows his higher self, knows God; knows well the things that cannot pass away. He also talks about truth. He talks about man and how we are truth and also illusion. I will find it and post it later. Love, Chuck , " danny weaver " <cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > Dear Jagbir, > > How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and the ONLY one > that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, if not a portion of > God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this is his wife. You see that can > be confusing as Jesus does not sound like JUST ONE of the other prophets, > you see. Anotherwords, you feel that ANY of them including Shri Mataji could > have died on the cross and saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji herself > clam to be a portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of this > day? What does SHE say on the matter? > > Earnestly questioning. > > Jai Shri Mataji > > God Bless, > > Carol > > > > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> > > > > > > Re: We just do not see Shri Mataji as GOD, > >that is all > >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > > > > > >Dear Kyyan, > > > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. The > >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from the > >moon and hence one and the same. > > > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri > >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti is > >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the > >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter > >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > > > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to concur > >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. This > >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also > >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for rejecting > >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the > >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a > >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity too. > > > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything > >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, > >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is His > >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use > >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be > >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are teaching > >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about > >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic > >religions. > > > >regards, > > > > > >jagbir > > > > , " v_koa " <v_koa> > >wrote: > > > > > > Jagbir, > > > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are one and > > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its light. I > > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God almighty, in > > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is the > > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I don't > > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to me > >from > > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light are > > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, though > > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be > >seen > > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is both its > > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Dear Carol, Before i can answer i would want to ask if this statement is true: " There are absolutely no biblical texts which when read in proper context portray Jesus as a scapegoat or state that He supplied total satisfaction for our sins. We are required to become living sacrifices (Romans 12.1) to join our sacrifice with that of Jesus the Christ which is being offered perpetually in heaven. " " " And now an absurd problem came up: `How could God have permitted that? For this question the deranged reason of the little community found a downright terrifying absurd answer: God gave his Son for forgiveness of sins, as a sacrifice. All at once it was all over with the Gospel! The guilt sacrifice, and that in its most repulsive, barbaric form, the sacrifice of the innocent man for the sins of the guilty! What atrocious paganism! — For Jesus had done away with the concept `guilt' itself — he had denied any chasm between God and man, he lived this unity of God and man as his `glad tidings' . . . And not as a special prerogative! " Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of God because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " In the wake of the Second World War, Mohandas K. Gandhi — called Mahatma ( " great-souled " ) by the Hindu people he was to lead to independence — was asked what Jesus meant to him. His answer was published in the popular weekly magazine Liberty. Although a great part of my life has been devoted to the study of religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I know that I cannot avoid seeming presumptuous in writing about the figure of Jesus and trying to explain what significance and meaning he has had for me. I do so solely because I have been told more than once by certain Christian friends that, since I am not a Christian and do not (to quote the exact words) " accept him in my innermost heart as the only-begotten Son of God, " I can never realize the full meaning of his teachings, and therefore can never draw upon the greatest source of spiritual strength known to man. . . . The adjective " begotten " has a meaning for me that I like to think is deeper and possibly grandeur than its literal one. To my mind it implies spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is that in his own life Jesus stood nearest to God. And it is in this sense that I look upon him as the Son of God . . . It is impossible, I think, to weigh the merits of the world's several religions, and unnecessary and pointless even to attempt to do so. But in each one, I believe, there was an original common impulse — the desire to help and to improve the life of all men. I attribute the miracles of Jesus not in a literal sense, which seems to me unimportant, but as the dramatic and unforgettable expression of this impulse, as the most vivid lesson possible to impart — not to pass by the sick and suffering, not to judge those who, in the world's eyes, have sinned, but to forgive them and thus help them to enter a new and better life. These lessons stand for us today as they stood for the men and women of Jesus' own time. Jesus gave mankind, in these lessons and in his life, the great goal toward which to aspire. It is because there is such a goal, and because there was such a figure as that of Jesus, that I cannot be pessimistic, but instead as hopeful and confident of the future. And it is because his life has this significance and meaning for me that I do not regard him as belonging to Christianity alone, but rather to the whole world, to all its peoples, no matter under what name they worsship. " The Story of Jesus And there is another problem with the way priests try to explain theology: " For most of my adult life, I have lived at the edges of traditional Christianity, seeking a spiritual home in one protestant church or another, yet never fully comfortable with theological language. Early on, it became clear that what I was hearing was not mixing particularly well with what I was thinking. I remember in my late teens being stunned when a Presbyterian minister, during a hot summer service, asked parishioners in the back row to close the door, since Jesus had just taken a seat among them. Everyone turned around, presumably to determine where the Savior had decided to sit. I also remember a popular Welsh minister holding his congregation in thrall with a tale of a young boy who, when he wandered from home and fell off a cliff, was saved by God in the form of a stray branch that caught and held him long enough for the local fire department to rescue him. God talk from the pulpit was as persistent as it was incomprehensible. Although I loved that lyrical phrase from John 3:16 - " For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son. . . - " I was at a loss to comprehend the meaning and reality of both God and Son. I was thus easily persuaded by John A. T. Robinson's controversial 1963 book, Honest to God, that, among other things, " we should do well to give up using the word 'God' for a generation, so impregnated has it become with a way of thinking we may have to discard if the Gospel is to signify anything " (7, 8). " John Shelby Spong. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. 288pp. Last, but not the least, is the way arguements are put forward. How can i start answering if i am unsure if they are even true in the first place, i.e., whether Jesus is the only _begotten_ Son of God or He died for our sins. Just because priests preach so does not necessarily mean they are right. But what i do know is that Jesus is the Son of God who came to preach about the Kingdom of God within and the Last Judgment. Since He could not complete His Mission Jesus promised to send the Comforter who will remind us again of Him. That is the job of Shri Mataji as ordained by God Almighty so that humanity is given ample time to repent and enter His Kingdom prior to the Second Coming. Splitting the hairs of theologians will not save us because they are as ignorant as their Dark Age peers. Will i be saved if i believe Jesus is the begotten Son of God, not the Son of God? As long as we seek salvation exclusively in our external churches, temples, mosques and synagogues we will remain blind to the Kingdom of God within. That is why argiung about petty points will lead us nowhere ............. unless you can quote me what Jesus said about the issues you have raised. Carol, if you can strictly furnish me His words, and His quotes only, i will be glad to answer. After, i too believe in Him as much as you do. The more we understand Him truthfully the better it will be for all. Thank you. love and best wishes, jagbir , " danny weaver " <cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > Dear Jagbir, > > How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and the ONLY one that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, if not a portion of God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this is his wife. You see that can be confusing as Jesus does not sound like JUST ONE of the other prophets, you see. Anotherwords, you feel that ANY of them including Shri Mataji could have died on the cross and saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji herself clam to be a portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of this > day? What does SHE say on the matter? > > Earnestly questioning. > > Jai Shri Mataji > > God Bless, > > Carol > > > > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> > > > > > > Re: We just do not see Shri Mataji as GOD, > >that is all > >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > > > > > >Dear Kyyan, > > > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. The > >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from the > >moon and hence one and the same. > > > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri > >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti is > >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the > >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter > >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > > > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to concur > >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. This > >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also > >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for rejecting > >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the > >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a > >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity too. > > > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything > >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, > >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is His > >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use > >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be > >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are teaching > >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about > >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic > >religions. > > > >regards, > > > > > >jagbir > > > > , " v_koa " <v_koa> > >wrote: > > > > > > Jagbir, > > > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are one and > > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its light. I > > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God almighty, in > > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is the > > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I don't > > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to me > >from > > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light are > > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, though > > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be > >seen > > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is both its > > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Dear Chuck, Thank you. Jesus did come to point the' Way' and we can do all things he did and more. ( Which He Him self did say. The Kingdom of God does lie within each of us, and we do need to study ourselves, I believe all of this, also. He mentions in the 'Bible' wjich started out by inspired men and the New Testament, by legends handed down and taught by Jesus, and then by the Catholic Church but not the Roman Catholic church, ( They were all one once,) and they wrote the New testament with things stated, but also observed, and handed down, and eve MORE was writtten then could be contained in all the workd. ) Jesus says, in the Bible " that He and His Father are ONE. If you have seen the Father you have seen Me. " That is why we see Him as ONE with the Father. This is not saying that Shri Mataji is not another reincarnation, but yet, it is stated that for the second coming He was to come in the air as He left, and EVERY EYE will see Him, COME as they SAW HIM GO. Shri Mataji was born to fleshly ( both flesh) parents. Jesus had ONE flesh parent( His mother) and was to have been conceived by means of the Holy Spirit which OVER SHADOWED her.Giving part as a Father. ( Joseph being the foster father) Now this is how I have interpreted it. Now of course we can say that the Bible is written wrong, and that all books are flawed, and so then who is right? Everyone? No matter what they believe. In the beginning there was ONE church started the way Jesus wanted it, but even in Revelation it states, that He was not happy with the various teachings as THEY all had flaws, and had gone astray, in some way. The people started making things up, to be COMFORTABLE< and our society shows how people cannot stand discomfort, so even services were shortened, etc, and even the Ten Commandments are made a mockery for anyone who wants to do anything. So we all interpret differently and so many have formed their own religions based on the way they THINK it should be, not on how it WAS, and IS and IS TO COME. Many " Way Showers " have come and gone, and led some to some truth along the way, some way off base, and some meaning well, but as time went on they went too far and could not go back, and some who maybe did bring some truth, and many who just made up their own belief, so people are wary, Some have USED people for their own satisfaction, and glory, and some had a need to be respected and loved. Whatever the reason, they all played a part in the religions we have today. There is an organized design to it all, by a SUPERiOR mind, much larger than mine, and I and all here only a fragment, like a drop of water in the ocean, to make the whole. But the Superior one sees into our heart, and knows WHY we do and think as we do, and if led astray why, so we ned not judge but love and try to help and guide one another to the path of righteousness, as the' Way Showers,' of Old, but the only thing is, we all think we are right. so who are we leading and where? Only God can judge that I guess, hopefully we are not too off base in our beliefs and we all get to the same destination ( or many) but we are told Narrow is the WAY and FEW wil find it. We do need to keep an open mind, and heart and hear each other out so God can lead us to the TRUE path by praying to FIND the WAY. Am not saying Shri Mataji is not, as it is not for me to say, any of us could be, part of the plan and not even know. When I met with Her, face to face, none of the big events that people mentioned happend, I saw her as a loving mother, kind and sweet, and like my Aunt, my Dad, my Mother in Law I saw many people of my family in her. It was like talking to them,. did not receive a big miracle a cure ( which I could use) or something tangible to use to express, to others, other then the WIND that blew hard before we met. Think she is highly evolved, and think she has much to offer, and FELT the VIBRATIONS while practising Sahaji Yoga, ( VERY MUCH so) but, is it the cool breeze, or something like Reiki or Healing Touch? That also gives off vibrations and changes, the chemistry etc. ( Scientifically proven) So that is what alot of it was, was told that people saw her as GOD, and could see her as a Way Shower, trying to help pople to have a belief and to turn to THE faith of God, and putting all religions together reaches to many more. Also helps with the ONE WORLD ORDER, to get all to believe a little of ALL religions. But do think she is lovely kind, and wonderful person, with much. wisdom, and faith. She is meaning well in what she is doing, and am not saying she is NOT God, but have questions, on that part of it, WAY SHOWER , or God? Why so many different in opinion even in Sahji Yoga group? Yes, a GREAT MYSTERY, maybe for us not to all know, but why, can't we all know? We all want one thing, our LORD to come and be WITH Us, and say, " Well Done THY GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT " We all are trying I think our best, to see the TRUTH, and maybe for that, we are on the proper road, as long as we do not stray too far from the right path. Chuck, thank you for being kind, and understanding, and anything you can say or do to help the understanding, is appreciated, I do have an open mind, and am willing to listen, forgive my outspokenness, might as well be honest, so you can understand where my thoughts lie, at this time. As stated before, never had any problems in the group and found everyone sweet, so nothing like that, just a few questions on this matters dstated above. What you have said, has helped some, and others, but not totally seeing it, yet, I guess. ( Of course Gods ways are Higher than OURS, so maybe am not able to get it) Love Carol and Danny ( althouh Danny is not writing this, but we both attended Sahaja Yoga and Pujas, were, yogis) > " Chuck " <chuckhennigan > > > Re: We just do not see Shri Mataji as GOD, >that is all >Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:00:41 -0000 > >Dear Carol, > >I will try and answer this as I also strugled with this. I think >Jesus is the Son of God. He came to show us the way we should live. I >believe we are able to do all the things Jesus did if we have faith. >I believe Jeus died on the cross to show that we also must die and >then resurected also just like he was. Jesus said we must look within >to find the Kingdom of God. Once I become my higher self, then I >become one with God or connected. This is my resurection. I also >believe we are reincarnated until we get it (realized)and become one >with God. The higher self. Everything and everyone comes from God. >This includes Jesus. Read the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ and >you will have a better understanding. > >Chapter 8 >Jesus said, If you would ask me what to study I would say, >yourselves; and when you well had studied them, and then would ask me >what to study next, I would reply ypurselves. He who knows well his >lower self, knows the illusions of the world, knows of the things >that pass away; and he who knows his higher self, knows God; knows >well the things that cannot pass away. > >He also talks about truth. He talks about man and how we are truth >and also illusion. I will find it and post it later. > >Love, > >Chuck > > , " danny weaver " ><cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > > How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and the >ONLY one > > that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, if not a >portion of > > God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this is his wife. You see >that can > > be confusing as Jesus does not sound like JUST ONE of the other >prophets, > > you see. Anotherwords, you feel that ANY of them including Shri >Mataji could > > have died on the cross and saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji >herself > > clam to be a portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of >this > > day? What does SHE say on the matter? > > > > Earnestly questioning. > > > > Jai Shri Mataji > > > > God Bless, > > > > Carol > > > > > > > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> > > > > > > > > > Re: We just do not see Shri >Mataji as GOD, > > >that is all > > >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Kyyan, > > > > > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. The > > >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from the > > >moon and hence one and the same. > > > > > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri > > >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti >is > > >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the > > >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter > > >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > > > > > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to >concur > > >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. >This > > >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also > > >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for >rejecting > > >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the > > >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a > > >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity >too. > > > > > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything > > >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, > > >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is >His > > >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use > > >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be > > >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are teaching > > >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about > > >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic > > >religions. > > > > > >regards, > > > > > > > > >jagbir > > > > > > , " v_koa " <v_koa> > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > Jagbir, > > > > > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are one >and > > > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its >light. I > > > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God >almighty, in > > > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > > > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is >the > > > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I >don't > > > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to me > > >from > > > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light >are > > > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, >though > > > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be > > >seen > > > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is both >its > > > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 Dear Jagbir, After Jesus was risen from the dead, He appeared to His disciples; John 20;21 " He spoke to them again and said, " As the Father has sent me, even so am I sending you. " 22Then he breathed on them and told them, " Receive the Holy Spirit. " This verse is interesting because here it is revealed that the Holy Spirit is the breath of Christ,ie that the presence of the Holy Spirit can be felt tangibly by us. To understand about why God would allow His Son to die for the forgiveness of our sins, I found the below link helpful. By the power of His love and forgiveness for all people, Jesus overcame death. He has shown us that death has no power over the Eternal Spirit. Love, Semira http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm22.htm Psalms Chapter 22 1 A psalm of David. 2 My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish? 3 My God, I call by day, but you do not answer; by night, but I have no relief. 4 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the glory of Israel. 5 In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted and you rescued them. 6 To you they cried out and they escaped; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. 7 3 But I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. 8 All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me: 9 " You relied on the LORD--let him deliver you; if he loves you, let him rescue you. " 10 Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother's breast. 11 Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God. 12 Do not stay far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help. 13 4 Many bulls surround me; fierce bulls of Bashan encircle me. 14 They open their mouths against me, lions that rend and roar. 15 Like water my life drains away; all my bones grow soft. My heart has become like wax, it melts away within me. 16 5 As dry as a potsherd is my throat; my tongue sticks to my palate; you lay me in the dust of death. 17 Many dogs surround me; a pack of evildoers closes in on me. So wasted are my hands and feet 18 that I can count all my bones. They stare at me and gloat; 19 they divide my garments among them; for my clothing they cast lots. 20 But you, LORD, do not stay far off; my strength, come quickly to help me. 21 Deliver me from the sword, my forlorn life from the teeth of the dog. 22 Save me from the lion's mouth, my poor life from the horns of wild bulls. 23 6 Then I will proclaim your name to the assembly; in the community I will praise you: 24 " You who fear the LORD, give praise! All descendants of Jacob, give honor; show reverence, all descendants of Israel! 25 7 For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out. 26 I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him. 27 8 The poor will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise. May your hearts enjoy life forever! " 28 All the ends of the earth will worship and turn to the LORD; All the families of nations will bow low before you. 29 For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations. 30 9 All who sleep in the earth will bow low before God; All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage. 31 And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you. 32 The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought. http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/psalm22.htm Psalm 22: A Brief Analysis by Wayne Jackson Christian Courier: Penpoints Monday, July 16, 2001 There is no better way to start your day than to meditate upon the thrilling grace of God as manifested at Calvary twenty centuries ago. It invigorates the soul and instills a level of gratitude to the Creator that is unrivaled by anything else. Psalm 22 has been a favorite of mine for many years, the reason being because of its wonderful messianic thrust. It contains so many powerful thoughts regarding the Savior, and His death on our behalf, that the Christian cannot but be stirred by it. The psalm logically divides into five segments. Consider these enriching treasures of truth. Christ's Rejection by God (1-5) It may seem curious to say that Jesus was rejected by God, but, in a certain sense, that is very true. The song begins with the words, " My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? " – an echo from the cross, of course (Mt. 27:46). The Lord Jesus was " forsaken " by the Father in the sense that God allowed him to drink the full measure of suffering and death (without intervening – see Mt. 26:53) because of His great love for humanity (Jn. 3:16). Divine " justice " was thus satisfied (Isa. 53:11; Rom. 3:25-26), and mercy was extended to Adam's sinful family (Eph. 2:4). What a magnificent plan! Christ's Rejection by Man (6-13) At the hands of cruel men, the Son of God was treated as a " worm. " He was despised, ridiculed, and abused. Nevermind. Jesus' trust was focused in His Father – a confidence instilled in him by his mother from the days she tenderly cradled Him on her breasts. What a tribute to the sweet maiden from Nazareth. Christ's Ordeal at Calvary (14-18) The cruelty of the crucifixion is poignantly depicted – bones out of joint, parched tongue, pierced hands and feet. The physical pain and emotional turmoil are incalculable. And all the while hardened soldiers – unmoved by the drama – gambled for his garments. Such insensitivity finds a modern counterpart in many a man today. Christ's Prayer for Deliverance (19-21) In the hour of darkness, hope could be found only in God. " Stay close to me, Lord . . . save me from the beasts that would devour me, " is his pleading sentiment. In times of dire need, to whom else can we turn? Happily, however, in this time of danger, the Lord exclaims: " You answered me! " Compare with this the thought expressed in Hebrews 5:7; in the trying ordeal of Gethsemane, He was " heard on account of his godly fear. " Christ's Thanksgiving for Victory (22-31) The Savior breaks forth in an anthem of praise in the midst of God's people. Jehovah is to be extolled. He did not abandon the son of Mary; rather, He " heard " the cries of His suffering child. There is the implication here of Jesus' resurrection from the dead by the hand of God Almighty. No wonder, then, at the praise that issues from the Lord's grateful lips. Finally, what should be the effect of these amazing events? Grateful people from the " ends of the earth " are invited to " turn unto Jehovah, " to come and " worship " before Him – honoring Him who is ruler of the nations and whose plan will not be thwarted. From generation to generation – let the saving message go forth. , " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > Dear Carol, > > Before i can answer i would want to ask if this statement is true: > > " There are absolutely no biblical texts which when read in proper > context portray Jesus as a scapegoat or state that He supplied total > satisfaction for our sins. We are required to become living > sacrifices (Romans 12.1) to join our sacrifice with that of Jesus > the Christ which is being offered perpetually in heaven. " > > " " And now an absurd problem came up: `How could God have permitted > that? For this question the deranged reason of the little community > found a downright terrifying absurd answer: God gave his Son for > forgiveness of sins, as a sacrifice. All at once it was all over > with the Gospel! The guilt sacrifice, and that in its most > repulsive, barbaric form, the sacrifice of the innocent man for the > sins of the guilty! What atrocious paganism! — For Jesus had done > away with the concept `guilt' itself — he had denied any chasm > between God and man, he lived this unity of God and man as his `glad > tidings' . . . And not as a special prerogative! " > > Friedrich Nietzsche, > Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ > > > i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of God > because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies > that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. > > > " In the wake of the Second World War, Mohandas K. Gandhi — called > Mahatma ( " great-souled " ) by the Hindu people he was to lead to > independence — was asked what Jesus meant to him. His answer was > published in the popular weekly magazine Liberty. > > Although a great part of my life has been devoted to the study of > religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I > know that I cannot avoid seeming presumptuous in writing about the > figure of Jesus and trying to explain what significance and meaning > he has had for me. I do so solely because I have been told more than > once by certain Christian friends that, since I am not a Christian > and do not (to quote the exact words) " accept him in my innermost > heart as the only-begotten Son of God, " I can never realize the full > meaning of his teachings, and therefore can never draw upon the > greatest source of spiritual strength known to man. . . . > > The adjective " begotten " has a meaning for me that I like to think > is deeper and possibly grandeur than its literal one. To my mind it > implies spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is that > in his own life Jesus stood nearest to God. And it is in this sense > that I look upon him as the Son of God . . . > > It is impossible, I think, to weigh the merits of the world's > several religions, and unnecessary and pointless even to attempt to > do so. But in each one, I believe, there was an original common > impulse — the desire to help and to improve the life of all men. I > attribute the miracles of Jesus not in a literal sense, which seems > to me unimportant, but as the dramatic and unforgettable expression > of this impulse, as the most vivid lesson possible to impart — not > to pass by the sick and suffering, not to judge those who, in the > world's eyes, have sinned, but to forgive them and thus help them to > enter a new and better life. > > These lessons stand for us today as they stood for the men and women > of Jesus' own time. > > Jesus gave mankind, in these lessons and in his life, the great goal > toward which to aspire. It is because there is such a goal, and > because there was such a figure as that of Jesus, that I cannot be > pessimistic, but instead as hopeful and confident of the future. And > it is because his life has this significance and meaning for me that > I do not regard him as belonging to Christianity alone, but rather > to the whole world, to all its peoples, no matter under what name > they worsship. " The Story of Jesus > > > And there is another problem with the way priests try to explain > theology: > > " For most of my adult life, I have lived at the edges of traditional > Christianity, seeking a spiritual home in one protestant church or > another, yet never fully comfortable with theological language. > Early on, it became clear that what I was hearing was not mixing > particularly well with what I was thinking. I remember in my late > teens being stunned when a Presbyterian minister, during a hot > summer service, asked parishioners in the back row to close the > door, since Jesus had just taken a seat among them. Everyone turned > around, presumably to determine where the Savior had decided to sit. > I also remember a popular Welsh minister holding his congregation in > thrall with a tale of a young boy who, when he wandered from home > and fell off a cliff, was saved by God in the form of a stray branch > that caught and held him long enough for the local fire department > to rescue him. God talk from the pulpit was as persistent as it was > incomprehensible. Although I loved that lyrical phrase from John > 3:16 - " For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten > Son. . . - " I was at a loss to comprehend the meaning and reality of > both God and Son. I was thus easily persuaded by John A. T. > Robinson's controversial 1963 book, Honest to God, that, among other > things, " we should do well to give up using the word 'God' for a > generation, so impregnated has it become with a way of thinking we > may have to discard if the Gospel is to signify anything " (7, 8). " > > John Shelby Spong. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. 288pp. > > > Last, but not the least, is the way arguements are put forward. How > can i start answering if i am unsure if they are even true in the > first place, i.e., whether Jesus is the only _begotten_ Son of God > or He died for our sins. Just because priests preach so does not > necessarily mean they are right. > > But what i do know is that Jesus is the Son of God who came to > preach about the Kingdom of God within and the Last Judgment. Since > He could not complete His Mission Jesus promised to send the > Comforter who will remind us again of Him. That is the job of Shri > Mataji as ordained by God Almighty so that humanity is given ample > time to repent and enter His Kingdom prior to the Second Coming. > > Splitting the hairs of theologians will not save us because they are > as ignorant as their Dark Age peers. Will i be saved if i believe > Jesus is the begotten Son of God, not the Son of God? As long as we > seek salvation exclusively in our external churches, temples, > mosques and synagogues we will remain blind to the Kingdom of God > within. That is why argiung about petty points will lead us > nowhere ............. unless you can quote me what Jesus said > about the issues you have raised. Carol, if you can strictly furnish > me His words, and His quotes only, i will be glad to answer. After, > i too believe in Him as much as you do. The more we understand Him > truthfully the better it will be for all. Thank you. > > love and best wishes, > > > jagbir > > > , " danny weaver " > <cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > > How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and > the ONLY one that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, > if not a portion of God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this is > his wife. You see that can be confusing as Jesus does not sound like > JUST ONE of the other prophets, you see. Anotherwords, you feel that > ANY of them including Shri Mataji could have died on the cross and > saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji herself clam to be a > portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of this > > day? What does SHE say on the matter? > > > > Earnestly questioning. > > > > Jai Shri Mataji > > > > God Bless, > > > > Carol > > > > > > > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> > > > > > > > > > Re: We just do not see Shri > Mataji as GOD, > > >that is all > > >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Kyyan, > > > > > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. > The > > >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from > the > > >moon and hence one and the same. > > > > > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri > > >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti > is > > >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the > > >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter > > >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > > > > > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to > concur > > >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. > This > > >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also > > >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for > rejecting > > >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the > > >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a > > >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity > too. > > > > > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything > > >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, > > >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is > His > > >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use > > >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be > > >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are > teaching > > >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about > > >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic > > >religions. > > > > > >regards, > > > > > > > > >jagbir > > > > > > , " v_koa " <v_koa> > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > Jagbir, > > > > > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are > one and > > > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its > light. I > > > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God > almighty, in > > > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > > > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is > the > > > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I > don't > > > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to > me > > >from > > > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light > are > > > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, > though > > > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be > > >seen > > > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is > both its > > > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 , " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> wrote: " i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of God > because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies > that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " Dear Jagbir, This is not the first time I have heard someone express this sentiment; a Muslim once told me the same thing when he was saying why he could not believe that Jesus could be the Son of God, but only a prophet. I do not see why this issue is such a problem for people; it is a question of conditionings, and what we perceive to be 'repulsive' or 'ugly' and 'shameful'. How can God's own creation be repulsive and ugly to Him? Best wishes, Semira > Dear Carol, > > Before i can answer i would want to ask if this statement is true: > > " There are absolutely no biblical texts which when read in proper > context portray Jesus as a scapegoat or state that He supplied total > satisfaction for our sins. We are required to become living > sacrifices (Romans 12.1) to join our sacrifice with that of Jesus > the Christ which is being offered perpetually in heaven. " > > " " And now an absurd problem came up: `How could God have permitted > that? For this question the deranged reason of the little community > found a downright terrifying absurd answer: God gave his Son for > forgiveness of sins, as a sacrifice. All at once it was all over > with the Gospel! The guilt sacrifice, and that in its most > repulsive, barbaric form, the sacrifice of the innocent man for the > sins of the guilty! What atrocious paganism! — For Jesus had done > away with the concept `guilt' itself — he had denied any chasm > between God and man, he lived this unity of God and man as his `glad > tidings' . . . And not as a special prerogative! " > > Friedrich Nietzsche, > Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ > > > i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of God > because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies > that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. > > > " In the wake of the Second World War, Mohandas K. Gandhi — called > Mahatma ( " great-souled " ) by the Hindu people he was to lead to > independence — was asked what Jesus meant to him. His answer was > published in the popular weekly magazine Liberty. > > Although a great part of my life has been devoted to the study of > religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I > know that I cannot avoid seeming presumptuous in writing about the > figure of Jesus and trying to explain what significance and meaning > he has had for me. I do so solely because I have been told more than > once by certain Christian friends that, since I am not a Christian > and do not (to quote the exact words) " accept him in my innermost > heart as the only-begotten Son of God, " I can never realize the full > meaning of his teachings, and therefore can never draw upon the > greatest source of spiritual strength known to man. . . . > > The adjective " begotten " has a meaning for me that I like to think > is deeper and possibly grandeur than its literal one. To my mind it > implies spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is that > in his own life Jesus stood nearest to God. And it is in this sense > that I look upon him as the Son of God . . . > > It is impossible, I think, to weigh the merits of the world's > several religions, and unnecessary and pointless even to attempt to > do so. But in each one, I believe, there was an original common > impulse — the desire to help and to improve the life of all men. I > attribute the miracles of Jesus not in a literal sense, which seems > to me unimportant, but as the dramatic and unforgettable expression > of this impulse, as the most vivid lesson possible to impart — not > to pass by the sick and suffering, not to judge those who, in the > world's eyes, have sinned, but to forgive them and thus help them to > enter a new and better life. > > These lessons stand for us today as they stood for the men and women > of Jesus' own time. > > Jesus gave mankind, in these lessons and in his life, the great goal > toward which to aspire. It is because there is such a goal, and > because there was such a figure as that of Jesus, that I cannot be > pessimistic, but instead as hopeful and confident of the future. And > it is because his life has this significance and meaning for me that > I do not regard him as belonging to Christianity alone, but rather > to the whole world, to all its peoples, no matter under what name > they worsship. " The Story of Jesus > > > And there is another problem with the way priests try to explain > theology: > > " For most of my adult life, I have lived at the edges of traditional > Christianity, seeking a spiritual home in one protestant church or > another, yet never fully comfortable with theological language. > Early on, it became clear that what I was hearing was not mixing > particularly well with what I was thinking. I remember in my late > teens being stunned when a Presbyterian minister, during a hot > summer service, asked parishioners in the back row to close the > door, since Jesus had just taken a seat among them. Everyone turned > around, presumably to determine where the Savior had decided to sit. > I also remember a popular Welsh minister holding his congregation in > thrall with a tale of a young boy who, when he wandered from home > and fell off a cliff, was saved by God in the form of a stray branch > that caught and held him long enough for the local fire department > to rescue him. God talk from the pulpit was as persistent as it was > incomprehensible. Although I loved that lyrical phrase from John > 3:16 - " For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten > Son. . . - " I was at a loss to comprehend the meaning and reality of > both God and Son. I was thus easily persuaded by John A. T. > Robinson's controversial 1963 book, Honest to God, that, among other > things, " we should do well to give up using the word 'God' for a > generation, so impregnated has it become with a way of thinking we > may have to discard if the Gospel is to signify anything " (7, 8). " > > John Shelby Spong. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. 288pp. > > > Last, but not the least, is the way arguements are put forward. How > can i start answering if i am unsure if they are even true in the > first place, i.e., whether Jesus is the only _begotten_ Son of God > or He died for our sins. Just because priests preach so does not > necessarily mean they are right. > > But what i do know is that Jesus is the Son of God who came to > preach about the Kingdom of God within and the Last Judgment. Since > He could not complete His Mission Jesus promised to send the > Comforter who will remind us again of Him. That is the job of Shri > Mataji as ordained by God Almighty so that humanity is given ample > time to repent and enter His Kingdom prior to the Second Coming. > > Splitting the hairs of theologians will not save us because they are > as ignorant as their Dark Age peers. Will i be saved if i believe > Jesus is the begotten Son of God, not the Son of God? As long as we > seek salvation exclusively in our external churches, temples, > mosques and synagogues we will remain blind to the Kingdom of God > within. That is why argiung about petty points will lead us > nowhere ............. unless you can quote me what Jesus said > about the issues you have raised. Carol, if you can strictly furnish > me His words, and His quotes only, i will be glad to answer. After, > i too believe in Him as much as you do. The more we understand Him > truthfully the better it will be for all. Thank you. > > love and best wishes, > > > jagbir > > > , " danny weaver " > <cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > > How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and > the ONLY one that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, > if not a portion of God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this is > his wife. You see that can be confusing as Jesus does not sound like > JUST ONE of the other prophets, you see. Anotherwords, you feel that > ANY of them including Shri Mataji could have died on the cross and > saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji herself clam to be a > portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of this > > day? What does SHE say on the matter? > > > > Earnestly questioning. > > > > Jai Shri Mataji > > > > God Bless, > > > > Carol > > > > > > > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> > > > > > > > > > Re: We just do not see Shri > Mataji as GOD, > > >that is all > > >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Kyyan, > > > > > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. > The > > >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from > the > > >moon and hence one and the same. > > > > > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., Shri > > >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the Shakti > is > > >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is the > > >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the Winter > > >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > > > > > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to > concur > > >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the Trinity. > This > > >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also > > >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for > rejecting > > >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the > > >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is a > > >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity > too. > > > > > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) everything > > >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, > > >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It is > His > > >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians use > > >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be > > >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are > teaching > > >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking about > > >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic > > >religions. > > > > > >regards, > > > > > > > > >jagbir > > > > > > , " v_koa " <v_koa> > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > Jagbir, > > > > > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are > one and > > > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its > light. I > > > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God > almighty, in > > > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i am > > > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but is > the > > > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I > don't > > > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as to > me > > >from > > > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it light > are > > > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, > though > > > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can be > > >seen > > > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is > both its > > > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 We can check the adishakti.org But a I agree not repulsive, a work of God never is. I had a dream last night, and think it may be telling me something. The main part was that as John The Baptist came baptising in the Jordan and even baptised Jesus, ( To show people what he expected them to do) and John was the FORERUNNER of Jesus, so Shri Matji is a forerunner, to bring the 'cool breeze' before the second coming of Jesus. So she has come to pave the way as such as John The Baptist, but of course he was not Jesus. He was not God, he was a relative to Jesus though, a cousin. ( The part of him being born to a fleshly Mother) He too had an important birth, however as Elizabeth was told ahead, in her old age and her huband the priest, that he would be born .. After Jesus died and was resurrected, the disciples, hid for along time, and started the churches in time they were the first Bishops and we are told in the Bible what is expected of Bishops Deacons etc, and the bishops finaly had to ordain so to speak others to help as they grew in numbers and churches were built as they believed it to be done, that was Orthodoxy, then in 1054 the Roman Catolics broke off, because of the Filoque and the Poplke issue among other things and CHANGED THINGS then the Lutherns broke off and CHANGED THINGS and on down and down and down each breaking off and teaching as they felt it should be, not the original teachings, and wanted to make people comfortable so shortened the services, and even Jesus brother James was one of the disciples, and the Saints that put the Liturgy together. People all have different thoughts, of course on what they would like, and again years later people had to flee underground and hide from the ones who would kill then, so while under ground people would change womewaht things., The Orthodox have TRIED NOT to change things but are looking 'old fashioned' in the eyes of the world. Well the dream seemed to state the Shri Mataji is a forerunner for the second coming of Jesus, but not Jesus, not God.. The reason I gues this is such an issue and I know that people differ on this even with in Sahaji Yoga itself, is that it would be blaspheme to say that you are God and NOT be. But IF you are, so be it, and then we should all KNOW it and we should declare it from the roof tops! Without fear of death, as even saints were glad to die for their faith, and did., So we msut be right on this issue, VERY important not to be wrong when God is watching. She IS or She IS NOT, we cannot have it both ways. Maybe She can shed some light on this, and ONCE and FOR ALL TELL ALL SAHAJA YOGIS YES I AM or NO I AM NOT, I am a GREAT WAY SHOWER SHOWING, YOU THE PATH TILL JESUS COMES. Or lay it on the LINE, so we will ALL know exactly where we stand. Jesus I know was stoned for being said to have blasphemied, and some will not believe either way, but it would be nice to see exactly how SHE feels on the issue. So not will go to the site, might have seen it not sure, will check, thank you. Guess many are trying to get to the correct answer on this. Jai Shri Mataji God Bless... Carol Ann > " semirafields " <semirafields > > > Re: We just do not see Shri Mataji as GOD, >that is all >Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:24:57 -0000 > > , " jagbir singh " ><adishakti_org> wrote: > > > " i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of God > > because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies > > that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " > >Dear Jagbir, >This is not the first time I have heard someone express this >sentiment; a Muslim once told me the same thing when he was saying >why he could not believe that Jesus could be the Son of God, but >only a prophet. >I do not see why this issue is such a problem for people; it is a >question of conditionings, and what we perceive to be 'repulsive' >or 'ugly' and 'shameful'. How can God's own creation be repulsive >and ugly to Him? >Best wishes, Semira > > > > > > Dear Carol, > > > > Before i can answer i would want to ask if this statement is true: > > > > " There are absolutely no biblical texts which when read in proper > > context portray Jesus as a scapegoat or state that He supplied >total > > satisfaction for our sins. We are required to become living > > sacrifices (Romans 12.1) to join our sacrifice with that of Jesus > > the Christ which is being offered perpetually in heaven. " > > > > " " And now an absurd problem came up: `How could God have permitted > > that? For this question the deranged reason of the little >community > > found a downright terrifying absurd answer: God gave his Son for > > forgiveness of sins, as a sacrifice. All at once it was all over > > with the Gospel! The guilt sacrifice, and that in its most > > repulsive, barbaric form, the sacrifice of the innocent man for >the > > sins of the guilty! What atrocious paganism! — For Jesus had done > > away with the concept `guilt' itself — he had denied any chasm > > between God and man, he lived this unity of God and man as his >`glad > > tidings' . . . And not as a special prerogative! " > > > > Friedrich Nietzsche, > > Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ > > > > > > i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of >God > > because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies > > that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. > > > > > > " In the wake of the Second World War, Mohandas K. Gandhi — called > > Mahatma ( " great-souled " ) by the Hindu people he was to lead to > > independence — was asked what Jesus meant to him. His answer was > > published in the popular weekly magazine Liberty. > > > > Although a great part of my life has been devoted to the study of > > religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I > > know that I cannot avoid seeming presumptuous in writing about the > > figure of Jesus and trying to explain what significance and >meaning > > he has had for me. I do so solely because I have been told more >than > > once by certain Christian friends that, since I am not a Christian > > and do not (to quote the exact words) " accept him in my innermost > > heart as the only-begotten Son of God, " I can never realize the >full > > meaning of his teachings, and therefore can never draw upon the > > greatest source of spiritual strength known to man. . . . > > > > The adjective " begotten " has a meaning for me that I like to think > > is deeper and possibly grandeur than its literal one. To my mind >it > > implies spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is >that > > in his own life Jesus stood nearest to God. And it is in this >sense > > that I look upon him as the Son of God . . . > > > > It is impossible, I think, to weigh the merits of the world's > > several religions, and unnecessary and pointless even to attempt >to > > do so. But in each one, I believe, there was an original common > > impulse — the desire to help and to improve the life of all men. I > > attribute the miracles of Jesus not in a literal sense, which >seems > > to me unimportant, but as the dramatic and unforgettable >expression > > of this impulse, as the most vivid lesson possible to impart — not > > to pass by the sick and suffering, not to judge those who, in the > > world's eyes, have sinned, but to forgive them and thus help them >to > > enter a new and better life. > > > > These lessons stand for us today as they stood for the men and >women > > of Jesus' own time. > > > > Jesus gave mankind, in these lessons and in his life, the great >goal > > toward which to aspire. It is because there is such a goal, and > > because there was such a figure as that of Jesus, that I cannot be > > pessimistic, but instead as hopeful and confident of the future. >And > > it is because his life has this significance and meaning for me >that > > I do not regard him as belonging to Christianity alone, but rather > > to the whole world, to all its peoples, no matter under what name > > they worsship. " The Story of Jesus > > > > > > And there is another problem with the way priests try to explain > > theology: > > > > " For most of my adult life, I have lived at the edges of >traditional > > Christianity, seeking a spiritual home in one protestant church or > > another, yet never fully comfortable with theological language. > > Early on, it became clear that what I was hearing was not mixing > > particularly well with what I was thinking. I remember in my late > > teens being stunned when a Presbyterian minister, during a hot > > summer service, asked parishioners in the back row to close the > > door, since Jesus had just taken a seat among them. Everyone >turned > > around, presumably to determine where the Savior had decided to >sit. > > I also remember a popular Welsh minister holding his congregation >in > > thrall with a tale of a young boy who, when he wandered from home > > and fell off a cliff, was saved by God in the form of a stray >branch > > that caught and held him long enough for the local fire department > > to rescue him. God talk from the pulpit was as persistent as it >was > > incomprehensible. Although I loved that lyrical phrase from John > > 3:16 - " For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten > > Son. . . - " I was at a loss to comprehend the meaning and reality >of > > both God and Son. I was thus easily persuaded by John A. T. > > Robinson's controversial 1963 book, Honest to God, that, among >other > > things, " we should do well to give up using the word 'God' for a > > generation, so impregnated has it become with a way of thinking we > > may have to discard if the Gospel is to signify anything " (7, 8). " > > > > John Shelby Spong. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. 288pp. > > > > > > Last, but not the least, is the way arguements are put forward. >How > > can i start answering if i am unsure if they are even true in the > > first place, i.e., whether Jesus is the only _begotten_ Son of God > > or He died for our sins. Just because priests preach so does not > > necessarily mean they are right. > > > > But what i do know is that Jesus is the Son of God who came to > > preach about the Kingdom of God within and the Last Judgment. >Since > > He could not complete His Mission Jesus promised to send the > > Comforter who will remind us again of Him. That is the job of Shri > > Mataji as ordained by God Almighty so that humanity is given ample > > time to repent and enter His Kingdom prior to the Second Coming. > > > > Splitting the hairs of theologians will not save us because they >are > > as ignorant as their Dark Age peers. Will i be saved if i believe > > Jesus is the begotten Son of God, not the Son of God? As long as >we > > seek salvation exclusively in our external churches, temples, > > mosques and synagogues we will remain blind to the Kingdom of God > > within. That is why argiung about petty points will lead us > > nowhere ............. unless you can quote me what Jesus said > > about the issues you have raised. Carol, if you can strictly >furnish > > me His words, and His quotes only, i will be glad to answer. >After, > > i too believe in Him as much as you do. The more we understand Him > > truthfully the better it will be for all. Thank you. > > > > love and best wishes, > > > > > > jagbir > > > > > > , " danny weaver " > > <cdweaver32@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > > > > How is it that Jesus could be the ONLY begotten son of God, and > > the ONLY one that could die on the cross to save us from our sins, > > if not a portion of God HImself? This is ( Carol) not Danny, this >is > > his wife. You see that can be confusing as Jesus does not sound >like > > JUST ONE of the other prophets, you see. Anotherwords, you feel >that > > ANY of them including Shri Mataji could have died on the cross and > > saved us from our sins? Does Shri Mataji herself clam to be a > > portion of GOD, more then the rest, or a Way Shower of this > > > day? What does SHE say on the matter? > > > > > > Earnestly questioning. > > > > > > Jai Shri Mataji > > > > > > God Bless, > > > > > > Carol > > > > > > > > > > " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: We just do not see Shri > > Mataji as GOD, > > > >that is all > > > >Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:44:32 -0000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Kyyan, > > > > > > > >There is no difference between the Adi Shakti and God Almighty. > > The > > > >Shakti is, as you have explained hypothetically, the light from > > the > > > >moon and hence one and the same. > > > > > > > >However, we cannot insist that the Shakti`s incarnation i.e., >Shri > > > >Mataji Nirmala Devi is God Almighty. Compared thus, if the >Shakti > > is > > > >the Ocean then Shri Mataji is a single wave; if the Shakti is >the > > > >Forest then Shri Mataji is a single tree; if Shakti is the >Winter > > > >then Shri Mataji is a single snowflake. > > > > > > > >Weaver Danny does not believe Shri Mataji to be God. i have to > > concur > > > >to that. However, Danny thinks that God Almighty is the >Trinity. > > This > > > >thought was formulated by so-called ìnfallible popes who also > > > >enlightened Christians, at risk of being burnt at stake for > > rejecting > > > >their teachings, that the earth is flat and the centre of the > > > >universe. Modern fundamentalists Christians who insist Earth is >a > > > >mind-boggling 6,000 years old want us to believe in the Trinity > > too. > > > > > > > >According to Shri Mataji (and other religious beliefs) >everything > > > >emmanates from God Almighty (Brahman) - Lord Jesus, Shiva, >Buddha, > > > >Krishna, Ganesha, Prophet Muhammad, Guru Nanak, you and me. It >is > > His > > > >Shakti that is the active creative Force. Fanatical Christians >use > > > >the Trinity to exclude all others, even relegating some to be > > > >demonic. Lord Jesus never preached what these churches are > > teaching > > > >their followers. It is so hypocritical to hear them talking >about > > > >Love and simultaneously condemning Islam and Hinduism as satanic > > > >religions. > > > > > > > >regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >jagbir > > > > > > > > , " v_koa " ><v_koa> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Jagbir, > > > > > > > > > > I always thought that God and his power(the adi shakti) are > > one and > > > > > the same; there is no difference between the moon and its > > light. I > > > > > mean i thought that thought the adi shakti was not God > > almighty, in > > > > > some way she was because there is reall no difference. So i >am > > > > > confused. I know the physical incarnation is just that, but >is > > the > > > > > eternal adi shakti God almighty or basically God almighty. I > > don't > > > > > understand the connection or the relation i should say, as >to > > me > > > >from > > > > > a logical stand point if something like the moon and it >light > > are > > > > > inseperable and bassicall have no meaning without eachother, > > though > > > > > the light and the actual object of rock that is the moon can >be > > > >seen > > > > > and undertoof, what makes the moon the moon in the mind is > > both its > > > > > object and its light, unable to be anything different. > > > > > > > > > > Any help would be good. > > > > > > > > > > Kyyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 > > , " jagbir singh " > <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > " i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of God because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it implies that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " > , " semirafields " <semirafields> wrote: > > Dear Jagbir, > This is not the first time I have heard someone express this > sentiment; a Muslim once told me the same thing when he was saying > why he could not believe that Jesus could be the Son of God, but > only a prophet. > I do not see why this issue is such a problem for people; it is a > question of conditionings, and what we perceive to be 'repulsive' > or 'ugly' and 'shameful'. How can God's own creation be repulsive > and ugly to Him? > Best wishes, Semira > > Dear Semira and Carol, i am comfortable with Son of God but why use the word " begotten " ? It is clear that this word is repulsive if used to confirm that is how God created Jesus. Check the meaning here: be·got·ten (b & #301;-g & #335;t'n) v. A past participle of beget. be·get (b & #301;-g & #277;t') tr.v., -got (-g & #335;t'), -got·ten (-g & #335;t'n) or -got, -get·ting, -gets. To father; sire. To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence. beget verb To be the biological father of: breed, father, get, procreate, sire. See kin. To cause to come into existence: breed, create, engender, father, hatch, make, originate, parent, procreate, produce, sire, spawn. Idioms: give birth rise to. The adjective begotten has one meaning: Meaning #1: (of offspring) generated by procreation http://www.answers.com/topic/begotten If popes and priests centuries ago believed that that was the way Mother Mary became pregnant we should not blindly follow them. This is the problem with Christian churches. Sometimes theology is repeatedly drilled into the faithful till they become immune to logic and deaf to repulsive ideas. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God is just not good enough. Insisting that He is the only begotten Son will ensure for all times that no other woman will be inpregnated by the Divine again. That is why i find that word so repulsive. i wonder what Muslims think of this appaling belief. love and best wishes, jagbir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 Dear Jagbir, Some things about this issue are explained at this link: http://www.portsmouth.anglican.org/jesus/the_life_a_portrait_of_jesus WHO DID JESUS THINK HE WAS? If we look at all the evidence, the conclusion is unavoidable that Jesus saw himself as being God. In a variety of ways, Jesus showed that he considered himself to be God; that he was God's Son; the Lord, the Son of Man, the `I AM'. Certainly, as the letters of the New Testament show, the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be someone who was God and whom they could worship. In considering this claim, we need to remember that Jesus was speaking in the Jewish world, which fervently believed there was only one God. If Jesus had been an Eastern mystic or a New Age teacher, for him to say that he was God would not have been a big issue; in such belief systems we are all, in some way, divine. But in Judaism there was only one God. Matthew 18-24; These are the facts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ: His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph, her husband, being a man of stern principle, decided to break the engagement but to do it quietly, as he didn't want to publically disgrace her. As he lay awake considering this, he fell into a dream, and saw an angel standing beside him. " Joseph, son of David, " the angel said, " don't hesitate to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a Son, and you shall name him Jesus (meaning Saviour), for he will save his people from their sins. This will fulfil God's message through his prophets--Listen! The virgin shall conceive a child! She shall give birth to a Son, and he shall be called 'Emmanuel'(meaning God is with us) When Joseph awaoke, he did as the angel commanded, and brought Mary home to be his wife, but she remained a virgin until her Son was born; and Joseph named him ' Jesus'. Luke 1;30-38 " Don't be frightened, Mary " the angel told her, " for God has decided to wonderfully bless you. Very soon now, you will become pregnant and have a baby boy, and you are to name him' Jesus'. He shall be very great, and shall be called the Son of God. And the Lord God shall give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he shall reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom shall never end. Mary asked the angel; but how can i have a baby. I am a virgin. The angel replied " The Holy spirit shall come upon you, and the power of God shall overshadow you; so the baby born to you will be utterly holy- the Son of God. " The Son of God, Begotten, Not Made http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=166 By: Allen Ross , Th.D., Ph.D. The Doctrine Of The Son The most important question that anyone has to answer is, " Who is Jesus Christ? " Or, as he put it himself, " Who do you say the Son of Man is? " How you answer that question determines your faith, and your fate. Almost everyone believes that Jesus lived, that he was a teacher, a famous prophet, even a miracle worker, although they may not accept everything the Bible says about him. Islam believes he was a good prophet, that he died and went to heaven, and that he will come again (as a prophet of Islam); but it does not believe that he is God and that his death was salvific. And liberal teachers in the churches today might claim something similar, that he was a good man, a great teacher, a wonderful example, but not God in the flesh. But the Bible and thereafter the traditions of the church claim much more for him. So in this section of the study we want to examine the doctrine of the Son of God, or, the second person of the trinity, called in his earthly ministry Jesus the Christ, or the Son of Man, or the Son of God. The early church struggled with the issue until they finally formulated the creed and condemned Arianism. At the heart of the Nicene Creed are these words: " And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father … . " In other words, although Jesus was a fully human person, he also was and is fully God. When we speak of the deity of Christ, we cannot water it down to mean that he was supernatural, or a divine being, or most God-like. He was and is God; but he was manifest in the flesh. This is why he alone is able to redeem us. This is why he is to receive our worship and our obedience. Those who have rejected this teaching in part or in full often claim that the doctrine was formulated after the fact by the early church, and that it was never there in the Bible. But this is simply not so. The teaching is anticipated in elementary form in the Old Testament, imbedded in the Gospels, and fully explicated by the apostles. When we read the great prophecies of Isaiah about the Messiah, we catch a glimpse of what that greatness would be: he would have such an amazing birth (Isa. 7:14) that he would be known as Immanuel, " God with us. " And by his nature and through his works he would be known as the " Mighty God " and the " Everlasting Father " (Isa. 9:6). This one alone would bring everlasting peace and righteousness to the earth, for he would come into the world for that purpose. Isaiah is very precise: the child would be born, but the Son would be given. It would take the incarnation (the subject of a later section in this series) before people could fully comprehend what that meant. A careful reading of other passages will also show that the prophecies identify the Messiah with or as the LORD. Isaiah 48:15 and 16 identifies him as the LORD, the one who is sent into the world by the Spirit. By itself this passage could be given different interpretations; but as part of the collection of Messianic passages it underscores the theme that the Messiah is not merely a mortal. Malachi 3:1-5 describes the Messiah as the messenger of the covenant who will come to his temple (the house of the LORD), but clarifies that it is Yahweh, the speaker, who will draw near. Proverbs 30:4 equates the Son with God the creator. These, but a few, give us a hint that this one who will be the Messiah will be much more than just a great human. And the New Testament fully explicates these prophecies as fulfilled in the person of Jesus. There was a birth in Bethlehem, for Messiah was to be born of the family of Judah. He would be known as Jesus. But the Son of God did not begin at Bethlehem. John 1 claims that he was the eternal Word, God himself, who created everything that exists, and that in time he became flesh and dwelt among us. Philippians 2:6 makes it clear that he is God, and that he set aside the use of some of his attributes to take on the form of the human, and die for the sins of the world. Titus 2:13 equates Jesus with God. Romans 9:6 describes him as God, who is blessed forever. And Revelation 5:13 and 14 portray Christ as deity. These are but a few of the New Testament passages that one would consider first in dealing with the topic. *****This is an important point, and not an appalling belief at all. Jesus IS the only begotten Son; He is God who became flesh; this is the crux of Christianity, and the crux of the Second Coming. If this point is not true, then the entire Biblical teachings, prophets' predictions and faith of many falls apart. It is not that the popes and priests altered or changed things to suit themselves; it is that the bible itself speaks of Jesus, His nature and His coming throughout. To not accept this point means considering that the entire Scriptures are based on a fallacy, and are not from God. Love, Semira , " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > > , " jagbir singh " > > <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > > > " i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of > God because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it > implies that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " > > > , " semirafields " > <semirafields> wrote: > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > This is not the first time I have heard someone express this > > sentiment; a Muslim once told me the same thing when he was saying > > why he could not believe that Jesus could be the Son of God, but > > only a prophet. > > I do not see why this issue is such a problem for people; it is a > > question of conditionings, and what we perceive to be 'repulsive' > > or 'ugly' and 'shameful'. How can God's own creation be repulsive > > and ugly to Him? > > Best wishes, Semira > > > > > > Dear Semira and Carol, > > i am comfortable with Son of God but why use the word " begotten " ? It > is clear that this word is repulsive if used to confirm that is how > God created Jesus. Check the meaning here: > > > be·got·ten (b & #301;-g & #335;t'n) > v. > A past participle of beget. > > be·get (b & #301;-g & #277;t') > tr.v., -got (-g & #335;t'), -got·ten (-g & #335;t'n) or -got, - get·ting, -gets. > To father; sire. > To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence. > > beget > > verb > > To be the biological father of: breed, father, get, procreate, sire. > See kin. > To cause to come into existence: breed, create, engender, father, > hatch, make, originate, parent, procreate, produce, sire, spawn. > Idioms: give birth rise to. > > The adjective begotten has one meaning: > > Meaning #1: (of offspring) generated by procreation > > > http://www.answers.com/topic/begotten > > > If popes and priests centuries ago believed that that was the way > Mother Mary became pregnant we should not blindly follow them. This > is the problem with Christian churches. Sometimes theology is > repeatedly drilled into the faithful till they become immune to > logic and deaf to repulsive ideas. Believing that Jesus is the Son > of God is just not good enough. Insisting that He is the only > begotten Son will ensure for all times that no other woman will be > inpregnated by the Divine again. That is why i find that word so > repulsive. i wonder what Muslims think of this appaling belief. > > love and best wishes, > > jagbir > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Dear Semira, i was sent an email with your name as subject and a link, perhaps in response to this post of yours. Just passing it on. regards, jagbir Council of Nicaea, First Ecumenical Council - 325 A.D. (Christian Era) The Nicene Council is considered by all as the first Ecumenical Council of the Church (Roman Catholic Church). It was occasioned by the Arian heresy which in effect denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The major product of this council was the Creed, the " Nicene Creed " ; but it also addressed the date of Easter, and the place of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Occasion for the Council The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the way from Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was bad enough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine from within, but there was also danger that it would weaken the Empire itself, and so Constantine, who was trying hard to consolidate the Empire, took an active part in trying to solve the matter. He called for a council of bishops of the Church. At first it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops since he first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for the bishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. But this would make it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might be good for other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in the controversy. Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to the sea making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palace compound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they could assemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia. Constantine himself was strongly influenced by certain Arian bishops, particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city of Nicomedia, and if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, he had been informed by them that a council of the Church would show that the teaching of Arius was correct. It would be to Constantine's credit that when the bishops in council voted the opposite way, condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly affirmed the traditional doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and promulgated their decisions. The Council Called He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops) by the imperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and urgent military matters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters too; the heresy and schism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a general council and the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to what great extent there was almost a union between church and state. Constantine put the imperial transportation system at the disposal of the bishops. This meant they could travel on his boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon, horse, whatever means the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of the Roman army (travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous). Constantine housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a place to meet. The Council Assembled 300 bishops were present (Ambrose of Milan and Hilary of Poitier report 318, but this may be a symbolic number representing the 318 servants of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them from the East. Not a few of the bishops attending were maimed or their predecessors had been killed by the very soldiery which now guarded them; they winced as they paraded into the council chamber, the soldiers with their swords and shining armor now forming an honor guard on either side of their procession. There is no doubt but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion and vote (at this council at least) because that was the rule of the Roman senate after which a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops at least so shortly out of persecution, the soldiers who stood guard inside the chamber, both to assure good order and prevent any intrusion from outside, must have been a symbol of imperial power and influence, formerly unleashed against them. Constantine himself opened the council with an impassioned plea for unity and peace, and his good friend Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (a suspected Arian or at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the opening address. According to the pattern of the Roman senate the council was actually presided over by another good friend of Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, who had presided over a local council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 years before. Hosius was assisted by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the simple priests, Vitus and Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The history at the time does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop of Rome held such a prominent place in the Council. Catholics like to stress that it was because the pope has some position of authority or leadership over the other bishops. Others maintain it was because Rome was the seat of the civil government (but it had just been moved from there to Constantinople). Anyway this pattern would be followed at many succeeding councils. The Nicene Creed The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way: Most held out at first for a Scriptural language and expression to make clear against the Arians what the catholic doctrine had been, but as the discussions progressed it became evident that there was no Scriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox teaching. They lighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) to express what they meant and what had always been the catholic teaching, but there was still needed a formula to summarize and convey their meaning. Of all bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the synod at Antioch the year before, produced a creed he used in his church. As far as it went, it was acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but they made additions in order to make it very clear that Arius' position was not what they espoused. This creed would be further amended by the First Council of Constantinople, and hence is technically known as the " Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed " , but maybe it should be known as the Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Here it is beneficial to explain something councils do, almost as a byproduct. Primarily a council's purpose, at least a dogmatic council, is to proclaim with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already a part of the teaching of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a few bishops, well-intentioned and open to the Spirit, who actually would have been hard pressed themselves to give a clear explanation of the relationship of the Son to the Father. But because they had humility and good will they learned from the discussions of the Council, at the same time that they were a part of the council process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishops present signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius (whom he later recalled). Date of Easter Among other things they also settled (they thought) was the date of Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sunday to commemorate the resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays (even Good Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodeciman controversy addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observe Sunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did most bishops, a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what the council fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observed variously, but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Easter should be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained in the decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a point which is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings which preceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) that the practice of Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) should remain in force, namely the Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not cite the first half of this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Rome did not agree for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to the date of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, and Alexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is, half way between the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could be and was eventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that a fixed day in the lunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according to a predetermined pattern in the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Roman date of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated that the Resurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish Passover. Now it must be remembered that only incomplete records of canons and decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What we actually have is the Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20 disciplinary canons, a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list of the bishops present (a list which varies from language to language). The rest of the canons (if authentic at all) have been garnered from other sources, including Arabic writings. In thus citing Nicea about Easter coming after the Jewish Passover, the Greeks must have sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sources than the west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just after the Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all who were not present at the Council, " . . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared to be particularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow the custom of the Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews. We desire to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews for it is surely shameful for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for to celebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible . " Alexandrian Patriarchate Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position of the ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction down there due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to bring order to the Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence to something which was developing in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers of Christianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a few have seen this as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of some sees to " lord it over " less important places. Perhaps there was some of this (later there certainly was), but it would seem that the intention of Nicaea was merely to establish order and place responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy on strong and capable centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council stated that Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as a byproduct and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria was second only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions Antioch being in the third place but does not define its territory. They remind all, however (Canon 7) of the importance of the See of Jerusalem but still left it under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. (Remember Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and it took a while for Christians there to make a come-back.) Of course there was no Constantinople yet. We speak nowadays of the " Patriarchates " of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as being established or recognized by the Council of Nicaea, but it is important to stress that at this juncture Nicaea doesn't use this term at all. It does use the term " Metropolitan " , but mostly it just refers to the " Bishop of Alexandria " , or the " Bishop of Rome " etc. (Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, all interesting, none really apply to the question of East-West relations or the church-state problem we are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently had attended many sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents voted) brought the council to a close with another talk on unity but in it he calls himself a " fellow bishop " , showing how closely he associated himself with the work of the Church. [end quote] http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm , " semirafields " <semirafields> wrote: > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > Some things about this issue are explained at this link: > > http://www.portsmouth.anglican.org/jesus/the_life_a_portrait_of_jesus > > WHO DID JESUS THINK HE WAS? > > If we look at all the evidence, the conclusion is unavoidable that > Jesus saw himself as being God. In a variety of ways, Jesus showed > that he considered himself to be God; that he was God's Son; the > Lord, the Son of Man, the `I AM'. Certainly, as the letters of the > New Testament show, the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be > someone who was God and whom they could worship. > > In considering this claim, we need to remember that Jesus was > speaking in the Jewish world, which fervently believed there was > only one God. If Jesus had been an Eastern mystic or a New Age > teacher, for him to say that he was God would not have been a big > issue; in such belief systems we are all, in some way, divine. But > in Judaism there was only one God. > > Matthew 18-24; > These are the facts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ: His > mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was > still a virgin she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph, > her husband, being a man of stern principle, decided to break the > engagement but to do it quietly, as he didn't want to publically > disgrace her. As he lay awake considering this, he fell into a > dream, and saw an angel standing beside him. " Joseph, son of > David, " the angel said, " don't hesitate to take Mary as your wife. > For the child within her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. And > she will have a Son, and you shall name him Jesus (meaning Saviour), > for he will save his people from their sins. This will fulfil God's > message through his prophets--Listen! The virgin shall conceive a > child! She shall give birth to a Son, and he shall be > called 'Emmanuel'(meaning God is with us) When Joseph awaoke, he did > as the angel commanded, and brought Mary home to be his wife, but > she remained a virgin until her Son was born; and Joseph named him ' > Jesus'. > Luke 1;30-38 > " Don't be frightened, Mary " the angel told her, " for God has decided > to wonderfully bless you. Very soon now, you will become pregnant > and have a baby boy, and you are to name him' Jesus'. He shall be > very great, and shall be called the Son of God. And the Lord God > shall give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he shall reign > over Israel forever; his Kingdom shall never end. Mary asked the > angel; but how can i have a baby. I am a virgin. The angel replied " > The Holy spirit shall come upon you, and the power of God shall > overshadow you; so the baby born to you will be utterly holy- the > Son of God. " > > > The Son of God, Begotten, Not Made > http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=166 > By: Allen Ross , Th.D., Ph.D. > > The Doctrine Of The Son > The most important question that anyone has to answer is, " Who is > Jesus Christ? " Or, as he put it himself, " Who do you say the Son of > Man is? " How you answer that question determines your faith, and > your fate. > > Almost everyone believes that Jesus lived, that he was a teacher, a > famous prophet, even a miracle worker, although they may not accept > everything the Bible says about him. Islam believes he was a good > prophet, that he died and went to heaven, and that he will come > again (as a prophet of Islam); but it does not believe that he is > God and that his death was salvific. And liberal teachers in the > churches today might claim something similar, that he was a good > man, a great teacher, a wonderful example, but not God in the flesh. > But the Bible and thereafter the traditions of the church claim much > more for him. > > So in this section of the study we want to examine the doctrine of > the Son of God, or, the second person of the trinity, called in his > earthly ministry Jesus the Christ, or the Son of Man, or the Son of > God. The early church struggled with the issue until they finally > formulated the creed and condemned Arianism. At the heart of the > Nicene Creed are these words: > > " And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of > God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of > Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one > substance with the Father … . " > > In other words, although Jesus was a fully human person, he also was > and is fully God. When we speak of the deity of Christ, we cannot > water it down to mean that he was supernatural, or a divine being, > or most God-like. He was and is God; but he was manifest in the > flesh. This is why he alone is able to redeem us. This is why he is > to receive our worship and our obedience. > > Those who have rejected this teaching in part or in full often claim > that the doctrine was formulated after the fact by the early church, > and that it was never there in the Bible. But this is simply not so. > The teaching is anticipated in elementary form in the Old Testament, > imbedded in the Gospels, and fully explicated by the apostles. When > we read the great prophecies of Isaiah about the Messiah, we catch a > glimpse of what that greatness would be: he would have such an > amazing birth (Isa. 7:14) that he would be known as Immanuel, " God > with us. " And by his nature and through his works he would be known > as the " Mighty God " and the " Everlasting Father " (Isa. 9:6). This > one alone would bring everlasting peace and righteousness to the > earth, for he would come into the world for that purpose. Isaiah is > very precise: the child would be born, but the Son would be given. > It would take the incarnation (the subject of a later section in > this series) before people could fully comprehend what that meant. > > A careful reading of other passages will also show that the > prophecies identify the Messiah with or as the LORD. Isaiah 48:15 > and 16 identifies him as the LORD, the one who is sent into the > world by the Spirit. By itself this passage could be given different > interpretations; but as part of the collection of Messianic passages > it underscores the theme that the Messiah is not merely a mortal. > Malachi 3:1-5 describes the Messiah as the messenger of the covenant > who will come to his temple (the house of the LORD), but clarifies > that it is Yahweh, the speaker, who will draw near. Proverbs 30:4 > equates the Son with God the creator. These, but a few, give us a > hint that this one who will be the Messiah will be much more than > just a great human. > > And the New Testament fully explicates these prophecies as fulfilled > in the person of Jesus. There was a birth in Bethlehem, for Messiah > was to be born of the family of Judah. He would be known as Jesus. > But the Son of God did not begin at Bethlehem. John 1 claims that he > was the eternal Word, God himself, who created everything that > exists, and that in time he became flesh and dwelt among us. > Philippians 2:6 makes it clear that he is God, and that he set aside > the use of some of his attributes to take on the form of the human, > and die for the sins of the world. Titus 2:13 equates Jesus with > God. Romans 9:6 describes him as God, who is blessed forever. And > Revelation 5:13 and 14 portray Christ as deity. These are but a few > of the New Testament passages that one would consider first in > dealing with the topic. > > *****This is an important point, and not an appalling belief at > all. Jesus IS the only begotten Son; He is God who became flesh; > this is the crux of Christianity, and the crux of the Second Coming. > If this point is not true, then the entire Biblical teachings, > prophets' predictions and faith of many falls apart. It is not that > the popes and priests altered or changed things to suit themselves; > it is that the bible itself speaks of Jesus, His nature and His > coming throughout. To not accept this point means considering that > the entire Scriptures are based on a fallacy, and are not from God. > Love, Semira > > > > > > > > > > > , " jagbir singh " > <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > > > > > , " jagbir singh " > > > <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > " i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son of > > God because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it > > implies that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " > > > > > , " semirafields " > > <semirafields> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > This is not the first time I have heard someone express this > > > sentiment; a Muslim once told me the same thing when he was > saying > > > why he could not believe that Jesus could be the Son of God, but > > > only a prophet. > > > I do not see why this issue is such a problem for people; it is > a > > > question of conditionings, and what we perceive to > be 'repulsive' > > > or 'ugly' and 'shameful'. How can God's own creation be > repulsive > > > and ugly to Him? > > > Best wishes, Semira > > > > > > > > > > Dear Semira and Carol, > > > > i am comfortable with Son of God but why use the word " begotten " ? > It > > is clear that this word is repulsive if used to confirm that is > how > > God created Jesus. Check the meaning here: > > > > > > be·got·ten (b & #301;-g & #335;t'n) > > v. > > A past participle of beget. > > > > be·get (b & #301;-g & #277;t') > > tr.v., -got (-g & #335;t'), -got·ten (-g & #335;t'n) or -got, - > get·ting, -gets. > > To father; sire. > > To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence. > > > > beget > > > > verb > > > > To be the biological father of: breed, father, get, procreate, > sire. > > See kin. > > To cause to come into existence: breed, create, engender, father, > > hatch, make, originate, parent, procreate, produce, sire, spawn. > > Idioms: give birth rise to. > > > > The adjective begotten has one meaning: > > > > Meaning #1: (of offspring) generated by procreation > > > > > > http://www.answers.com/topic/begotten > > > > > > If popes and priests centuries ago believed that that was the way > > Mother Mary became pregnant we should not blindly follow them. > This > > is the problem with Christian churches. Sometimes theology is > > repeatedly drilled into the faithful till they become immune to > > logic and deaf to repulsive ideas. Believing that Jesus is the Son > > of God is just not good enough. Insisting that He is the only > > begotten Son will ensure for all times that no other woman will be > > inpregnated by the Divine again. That is why i find that word so > > repulsive. i wonder what Muslims think of this appaling belief. > > > > love and best wishes, > > > > jagbir > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Dear Jagbir, Thank you for this information. The subject of Christ's divinity is referred to in many places in the Bible; it is not a subject that came up after the death and resurrection. The subject of Christ's divinity cannot be diluted unless one disregards the Scriptures. Regards, Semira I copy below some excerpts from the following link; http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeV1/P1_C07.htm § 3. Particular Passages which Teach the Divinity of Christ. A. The Writings of St. John. John i. 1-14. Why the higher nature of Christ is called o` lo,goj and why John used that designation, are different questions. As the word lo,goj does not occur in Scripture in the sense of reason, it should be taken in its ordinary meaning. The question why the Son is called " The Word " may be answered by saying that the term expresses both his nature and his office. The word is that which reveals. The Son is the eivkw,n and avpau,gasma of God, and therefore his word. It is his office to make God known to his creatures. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The Son, therefore, as the revealer of God, is the Word. The reason why John selected this designation of the divine nature of Christ, is not so easy to determine. It may indeed be said that there is ground for the use of the term in the usage of the Old Testament and of the Jews who were contemporaries with the Apostle. In the Hebrew Scriptures the manifested Jehovah is called the Word of God, and to Him individual subsistence and divine perfections are ascribed. (Ps. xxxiii. 6; cxix. 89; Is. xl. 8; Ps. cvii. 20; cxlvii. 18.) This is more frequently done in the apocryphal books and in the Targums. It was not therefore an unusual or unknown term introduced by the Apostle John. Still as he only, of the New Testament writers, thus employs the word, there must have been some special reason for his doing so. That reason may have been to counteract the erroneous views concerning the nature of God and his Word, which had begun to prevail, and which had some support from the doctrines of Philo and other Alexandrian Jews. It is, however, of less importance to determine why John calls the Son lo,goj, than to ascertain what he teaches concerning Him. He does teach (1.) That He is eternal. He was in the beginning; i.e., was before the creation; before the foundation of the world; before the world was. Compare Prov. viii. 23; John xvii. 5, 24; Eph. i. 4. These are all Scriptural forms of expressing the idea of eternity. The Word then was (hvn), He did not begin to be but already was. The h=n of ver. 1 stands opposed to evge,netover. 14. " He was the Word, and became flesh. " (2.) The eternal Word existed in intimate union with God. " The Word was with God; " as Wisdom is said to have been with Him in the beginning. (Prov. viii. 30; John i. 18.) (3.) He was God. The word qeo,jis clearly the predicate, as it is without the article (compare John iv. 24, pneu/ma o` qeo,j, God is a Spirit), and because lo,goj is the subject in the whole context. That qeo,j is neither to be taken for qei/oj, nor rendered a God, is plain from what is immediately said of the lo,goj in the following verses, and from the analogy of Scripture, which proves that the lo,goj is qeo,jin the highest sense of the word. In this connection o` qeo.j h=n o. lo,goj would be equivalent to saying, " The Son is the Father. " Qeo,j without the article occurs frequently in the New Testament when it refers to the supreme God. (4.) The lo,goj is the creator of all things. All things were made by Him. diV auvtou/. The dia. here does not necessarily express subordinate instrumentality. All things are said to be dia. qeou/ as well as evk qeou/) The Father operates through the Son and the Son through the Spirit. All that the preposition indicates is subordination as to the mode of operation, which is elsewhere taught in relation to the persons of the Trinity. That all creatures owe their being to the Word, is made the more prominent by saying, " Without him was not anything made that was made; " pa/n o` ge,gonenis through Him. He therefore cannot be a creature. He was not only before all creatures, but everything created was by Him caused to be. (5.) The lo,goj is self-existent. He is underived. " In him was life. " This is true only of God. The Godhead subsisting in the Father, Word, and Spirit, alone is self-existent, having life in itself. (6.) The life of the Word " is the light of men. " Having life in Himself, the Word is the source of life in all that lives, and especially of the intellectual and spiritual life of man; and therefore He is said to be the light of men; i. e., the source of intellectual life and knowledge in all their forms. (7.) The lo,goj, as the true or real light, shineth in darkness (evn th/??| skoti,a| = evn toi/j evskotisme,noij)in the midst of a world alienated from God. The men of the world, the children of darkness, do not comprehend the light; they do not recognize the Word as God, the creator of all things, and the source of life and knowledge. To those who do thus recognize Him, He gives power to become the sons of God, that is, He raises them to the dignity and blessedness of God's children. (8.) This Word became flesh that is, became a man. This use of the word flesh is explained by such passages as 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ii. 14; Rom. viii. 3, in connection with Luke i. 35; Gal. iv. 4; Phil. ii. 7. As to the glory of the incarnate lo,goj, the Apostle says of himself and of his fellow disciples, " We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father " ; such as could belong to none other than to Him who is the eternal Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. Other Passages in St. John's Gospel. This introduction, which thus unmistakably sets forth the divine nature of Christ, is the key-note of John's Gospel, and of all his other writings. His main object is to convince men that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and that the acknowledgment of Him as such is necessary to salvation. This Apostle was, therefore, in the early Church called the Qeolo,goj, because he taught so clearly and earnestly that the lo,goj is God. In verse 18 of this chapter he says that the Son alone has the knowledge of God, and is the source of that knowledge to others. He showed Nathanael that He knew his character, being the searcher of hearts. In his discourse with Nicedemus, He spoke with divine authority; revealing the things of heaven, because He came from heaven and was even then in heaven. His coming into the world was the highest evidence of divine love, and the salvation of all men depends on faith in Him; that is, on their believing that He is what He declared Himself to be, and trusting Him and obeying Him accordingly. When the Jews censured Him for healing a lame man on the Sabbath, He defended Himself by saying that God worked on the Sabbath; that He and the Father were one; that He did whatever God did; that He could give life to whom He willed; that all judgment was committed to Him, and that He was entitled to the same honour as the Father. In the sixth chapter He sets Himself forth as the source of life, first under the figure of bread, and then under that of a sacrifice. In the eighth chapter He declares Himself to be the light of the world. " He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. " He alone could give true freedom, freedom from the condemnation and power of sin. He had been the only Saviour from the beginning as He was the object of faith to Abraham, who saw his day, and rejoiced, for he says, " Before Abraham was I am, " thereby asserting not only his preexistence, but his eternity, as He declares himself to be the " I am, " that is, the self-existing and immutable Jehovah. ============ It is only a small part of the evidence of the divinity of our Lord that can thus be gathered up from the general teaching of the New Testament. It is important to bear in mind that faith in this doctrine rests not on this or that passage, or on this or that mode of representation, but upon the whole revelation of God concerning his Son. The divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ is wrought into the texture of the Scriptures, and is everywhere asserted or assumed. There are, however, many passages in which the doctrine is so clearly presented, that they should not be passed by in any formal discussion of this subject. ============== Our Lord's Last Discourse.(St John's Gospel) The discourse recorded in the 14th, 15th, and 16th, and the prayer recorded in the 17th chapter, are the words of God to men. No created being could speak as Christ here speaks. He begins by exhorting his disciples to have the same faith in Him which they had in God. He went to prepare heaven for them, and would return and take them to Himself. The knowledge of Him is the knowledge of God. He who had seen Him had seen the Father also; for He and the Father are one. He promised to send them the Holy Ghost to abide with them permanently; and that He would manifest Himself to them as God manifests Himself to the saints, revealing to them his glory and love, and making them sensible of his presence. He would continue to be to his Church the source of life; union with Him is as necessary as the union of a branch to the vine. The Holy Spirit sent by Him would reveal the things of Christ, rendering the Apostles infallible as teachers, and giving divine illumination to all believers. It was necessary that He should leave them in order to send the Spirit, who would convince the world of the sin of not believing Him to be all He claimed to be; of the righteousness of his assumption to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world, of which his going to the Father (i. e. resurrection) was the decisive proof; and also of the certainty of a future judgment, inasmuch as the prince of this world was already judged. The Spirit was to glorify Christ, i. e., to reveal Him as possessing all divine perfections, for whatsoever the Father hath the Son hath likewise. His intercessory prayer could proceed from the lips of none but a divine person. He speaks as one who had power over all flesh, and who could give eternal life to all whom God the Father had given Him. Eternal life consists in the knowledge of God, and of Him whom God had sent. He prays that He, clothed in our nature, might be glorified with the glory which He had before the foundation of the world; that his people might be sanctified; that they might be one by his dwelling in them, and that they might be made partakers of his glory. He was condemned by the Jews for claiming to be the Son of God, and by Pilate for claiming to be a king. When He was crucified the heavens were darkened, the earth trembled, the dead arose, and the vail of the temple was rent. By his resurrection his claim to be the Son of God and Saviour of men was authenticated. Thomas, not being present at the first interview between Christ and his disciples, doubted the fact of his resurrection; but when he saw Him he was fully convinced, and owned Him as his Lord and God. (John xx. 28.) That o` ku/rio,j mou kai. o` qeo,j mou is an address to Christ, and not an exclamation, is evident, (1.) From the words avpekri,qh kai. ei=pen, he responded and said, which would be out of place before an exclamation. They introduce a reply to what Christ had said. Thomas answered that he was fully satistied and firmly convinced that Christ was Lord and God. The word eivpei/n never means to exclaim. (2.) Such an exclamation would be abhorrent to a Jew, who had even a superstitious reverence for the name of God, especially for the name Jehovah, and o` ku,rioj o` qeo,j is equivalent to ~yhiOla, hA " hy>. (3.) The repetition of the pronoun mou/ also requires the passage to be considered as an address to Christ. , " jagbir singh " <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > Dear Semira, > > i was sent an email with your name as subject and a link, perhaps in > response to this post of yours. Just passing it on. > > regards, > > jagbir > > > Council of Nicaea, First Ecumenical Council - 325 A.D. (Christian > Era) > > The Nicene Council is considered by all as the first Ecumenical > Council of the Church (Roman Catholic Church). It was occasioned by > the Arian heresy which in effect denied the divinity of Jesus > Christ. The major product of this council was the Creed, the " Nicene > Creed " ; but it also addressed the date of Easter, and the place of > the Patriarch of Alexandria. > > Occasion for the Council > The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the way from > Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was > bad enough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine > from within, but there was also danger that it would weaken the > Empire itself, and so Constantine, who was trying hard to > consolidate the Empire, took an active part in trying to solve the > matter. He called for a council of bishops of the Church. At first > it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops since he > first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for > the bishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the > Church there. But this would make it difficult for himself to > attend, and besides it might be good for other bishops to attend, > those not necessarily involved in the controversy. Hence Nicaea in > Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to the sea making it > easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palace > compound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which > they could assemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby > Nicomedia. > > Constantine himself was strongly influenced by certain Arian > bishops, particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city of > Nicomedia, and if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, > he had been informed by them that a council of the Church would show > that the teaching of Arius was correct. It would be to Constantine's > credit that when the bishops in council voted the opposite way, > condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly affirmed the traditional > doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and promulgated their > decisions. > > The Council Called > He announced the council (a command-performance for important > bishops) by the imperial post, heretofore reserved for civil > administration and urgent military matters. Of course the bishops > wanted to settle matters too; the heresy and schism were tearing the > Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a general council and > the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to what great > extent there was almost a union between church and state. > Constantine put the imperial transportation system at the disposal > of the bishops. This meant they could travel on his boats free, that > they could go by cart or wagon, horse, whatever means the Empire had > to offer, all under the protection of the Roman army (travel was not > only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous). Constantine housed > the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a place to > meet. > > The Council Assembled 300 bishops were present (Ambrose of Milan and > Hilary of Poitier report 318, but this may be a symbolic number > representing the 318 servants of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them > from the East. Not a few of the bishops attending were maimed or > their predecessors had been killed by the very soldiery which now > guarded them; they winced as they paraded into the council chamber, > the soldiers with their swords and shining armor now forming an > honor guard on either side of their procession. There is no doubt > but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion and vote (at > this council at least) because that was the rule of the Roman senate > after which a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops at > least so shortly out of persecution, the soldiers who stood guard > inside the chamber, both to assure good order and prevent any > intrusion from outside, must have been a symbol of imperial power > and influence, formerly unleashed against them. > > Constantine himself opened the council with an impassioned plea for > unity and peace, and his good friend Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (a > suspected Arian or at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the opening > address. According to the pattern of the Roman senate the council > was actually presided over by another good friend of Constantine, > Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, who had presided over a local > council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 years before. Hosius was assisted > by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the simple priests, Vitus and > Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The history at the time > does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop of Rome held such a > prominent place in the Council. Catholics like to stress that it was > because the pope has some position of authority or leadership over > the other bishops. Others maintain it was because Rome was the seat > of the civil government (but it had just been moved from there to > Constantinople). Anyway this pattern would be followed at many > succeeding councils. > > The Nicene Creed > The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way: > > Most held out at first for a Scriptural language and expression to > make clear against the Arians what the catholic doctrine had been, > but as the discussions progressed it became evident that there was > no Scriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox > teaching. They lighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same > substance as) to express what they meant and what had always been > the catholic teaching, but there was still needed a formula to > summarize and convey their meaning. Of all bishops, Eusebius of > Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the synod at Antioch the year > before, produced a creed he used in his church. As far as it went, > it was acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but they made > additions in order to make it very clear that Arius' position was > not what they espoused. This creed would be further amended by the > First Council of Constantinople, and hence is technically known as > the " Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed " , but maybe it should be known > as the Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. > > Here it is beneficial to explain something councils do, almost as a > byproduct. Primarily a council's purpose, at least a dogmatic > council, is to proclaim with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already > a part of the teaching of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a > few bishops, well-intentioned and open to the Spirit, who actually > would have been hard pressed themselves to give a clear explanation > of the relationship of the Son to the Father. But because they had > humility and good will they learned from the discussions of the > Council, at the same time that they were a part of the council > process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishops > present signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and > Theonas of Marmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius > (whom he later recalled). > > Date of Easter > Among other things they also settled (they thought) was the date of > Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sunday to commemorate the > resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays (even Good > Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodeciman > controversy addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did > observe Sunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine > wanted, as did most bishops, a universal observance. To this very > day it is disputed what the council fathers meant by their decision, > and Easter is still observed variously, but the points of their > decree supposed by most are: 1) Easter should be celebrated on the > same day by all (a point all agree was contained in the decree); 2) > Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a point which is > not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings > which preceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) > that the practice of Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) > should remain in force, namely the Sunday after the first full moon > of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not cite the first half of this > point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Rome did not agree > for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to the > date of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, > and Alexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that > is, half way between the shortest and the longest day of the year, > it could be and was eventually solved by the devising of various > cycles, so that a fixed day in the lunar calendar (14th of Nisan) > would occur according to a predetermined pattern in the Julian > calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Roman > date of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated > that the Resurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish > Passover. > > Now it must be remembered that only incomplete records of canons and > decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What we actually have is > the Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20 > disciplinary canons, a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list > of the bishops present (a list which varies from language to > language). > > The rest of the canons (if authentic at all) have been garnered from > other sources, including Arabic writings. In thus citing Nicea about > Easter coming after the Jewish Passover, the Greeks must have > sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sources than the > west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just after > the Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all who > were not present at the Council, > " . . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared > to be particularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to > follow the custom of the Jews. We ought not therefore, to have > anything in common with the Jews. We desire to separate ourselves > from the detestable company of the Jews for it is surely shameful > for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction we could > not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate > two Passovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these > Jews. . . for to celebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally > inadmissible . " > > Alexandrian Patriarchate > Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the > position of the ancient see of Alexandria because there were > problems of jurisdiction down there due to the Melitian schism. The > Council's purpose was to bring order to the Church in Alexandria, > but in so doing they gave evidence to something which was developing > in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers of > Christianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a > few have seen this as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of > some sees to " lord it over " less important places. Perhaps there was > some of this (later there certainly was), but it would seem that the > intention of Nicaea was merely to establish order and place > responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy on strong and capable > centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council stated that > Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, and > Pentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, > almost as a byproduct and as if it went without saying, they > mentioned that Alexandria was second only to Rome which had similar > rights in the West. It mentions Antioch being in the third place but > does not define its territory. > > They remind all, however (Canon 7) of the importance of the See of > Jerusalem but still left it under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. > (Remember Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and > it took a while for Christians there to make a come-back.) Of course > there was no Constantinople yet. We speak nowadays of > the " Patriarchates " of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as > being established or recognized by the Council of Nicaea, but it is > important to stress that at this juncture Nicaea doesn't use this > term at all. It does use the term " Metropolitan " , but mostly it just > refers to the " Bishop of Alexandria " , or the " Bishop of Rome " etc. > (Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, all interesting, none really > apply to the question of East-West relations or the church-state > problem we are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently had > attended many sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents > voted) brought the council to a close with another talk on unity but > in it he calls himself a " fellow bishop " , showing how closely he > associated himself with the work of the Church. > [end quote] > > http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm > > > , " semirafields " > <semirafields> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > > > > Some things about this issue are explained at this link: > > > > > http://www.portsmouth.anglican.org/jesus/the_life_a_portrait_of_jesus > > > > WHO DID JESUS THINK HE WAS? > > > > If we look at all the evidence, the conclusion is unavoidable that > > Jesus saw himself as being God. In a variety of ways, Jesus showed > > that he considered himself to be God; that he was God's Son; the > > Lord, the Son of Man, the `I AM'. Certainly, as the letters of the > > New Testament show, the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be > > someone who was God and whom they could worship. > > > > In considering this claim, we need to remember that Jesus was > > speaking in the Jewish world, which fervently believed there was > > only one God. If Jesus had been an Eastern mystic or a New Age > > teacher, for him to say that he was God would not have been a big > > issue; in such belief systems we are all, in some way, divine. But > > in Judaism there was only one God. > > > > Matthew 18-24; > > These are the facts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ: His > > mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she > was > > still a virgin she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Then > Joseph, > > her husband, being a man of stern principle, decided to break the > > engagement but to do it quietly, as he didn't want to publically > > disgrace her. As he lay awake considering this, he fell into a > > dream, and saw an angel standing beside him. " Joseph, son of > > David, " the angel said, " don't hesitate to take Mary as your wife. > > For the child within her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. > And > > she will have a Son, and you shall name him Jesus (meaning > Saviour), > > for he will save his people from their sins. This will fulfil > God's > > message through his prophets--Listen! The virgin shall conceive a > > child! She shall give birth to a Son, and he shall be > > called 'Emmanuel'(meaning God is with us) When Joseph awaoke, he > did > > as the angel commanded, and brought Mary home to be his wife, but > > she remained a virgin until her Son was born; and Joseph named > him ' > > Jesus'. > > Luke 1;30-38 > > " Don't be frightened, Mary " the angel told her, " for God has > decided > > to wonderfully bless you. Very soon now, you will become pregnant > > and have a baby boy, and you are to name him' Jesus'. He shall be > > very great, and shall be called the Son of God. And the Lord God > > shall give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he shall > reign > > over Israel forever; his Kingdom shall never end. Mary asked the > > angel; but how can i have a baby. I am a virgin. The angel > replied " > > The Holy spirit shall come upon you, and the power of God shall > > overshadow you; so the baby born to you will be utterly holy- the > > Son of God. " > > > > > > The Son of God, Begotten, Not Made > > http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=166 > > By: Allen Ross , Th.D., Ph.D. > > > > The Doctrine Of The Son > > The most important question that anyone has to answer is, " Who is > > Jesus Christ? " Or, as he put it himself, " Who do you say the Son > of > > Man is? " How you answer that question determines your faith, and > > your fate. > > > > Almost everyone believes that Jesus lived, that he was a teacher, > a > > famous prophet, even a miracle worker, although they may not > accept > > everything the Bible says about him. Islam believes he was a good > > prophet, that he died and went to heaven, and that he will come > > again (as a prophet of Islam); but it does not believe that he is > > God and that his death was salvific. And liberal teachers in the > > churches today might claim something similar, that he was a good > > man, a great teacher, a wonderful example, but not God in the > flesh. > > But the Bible and thereafter the traditions of the church claim > much > > more for him. > > > > So in this section of the study we want to examine the doctrine of > > the Son of God, or, the second person of the trinity, called in > his > > earthly ministry Jesus the Christ, or the Son of Man, or the Son > of > > God. The early church struggled with the issue until they finally > > formulated the creed and condemned Arianism. At the heart of the > > Nicene Creed are these words: > > > > " And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son > of > > God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light > of > > Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one > > substance with the Father … . " > > > > In other words, although Jesus was a fully human person, he also > was > > and is fully God. When we speak of the deity of Christ, we cannot > > water it down to mean that he was supernatural, or a divine being, > > or most God-like. He was and is God; but he was manifest in the > > flesh. This is why he alone is able to redeem us. This is why he > is > > to receive our worship and our obedience. > > > > Those who have rejected this teaching in part or in full often > claim > > that the doctrine was formulated after the fact by the early > church, > > and that it was never there in the Bible. But this is simply not > so. > > The teaching is anticipated in elementary form in the Old > Testament, > > imbedded in the Gospels, and fully explicated by the apostles. > When > > we read the great prophecies of Isaiah about the Messiah, we catch > a > > glimpse of what that greatness would be: he would have such an > > amazing birth (Isa. 7:14) that he would be known as Immanuel, " God > > with us. " And by his nature and through his works he would be > known > > as the " Mighty God " and the " Everlasting Father " (Isa. 9:6). This > > one alone would bring everlasting peace and righteousness to the > > earth, for he would come into the world for that purpose. Isaiah > is > > very precise: the child would be born, but the Son would be given. > > It would take the incarnation (the subject of a later section in > > this series) before people could fully comprehend what that meant. > > > > A careful reading of other passages will also show that the > > prophecies identify the Messiah with or as the LORD. Isaiah 48:15 > > and 16 identifies him as the LORD, the one who is sent into the > > world by the Spirit. By itself this passage could be given > different > > interpretations; but as part of the collection of Messianic > passages > > it underscores the theme that the Messiah is not merely a mortal. > > Malachi 3:1-5 describes the Messiah as the messenger of the > covenant > > who will come to his temple (the house of the LORD), but clarifies > > that it is Yahweh, the speaker, who will draw near. Proverbs 30:4 > > equates the Son with God the creator. These, but a few, give us a > > hint that this one who will be the Messiah will be much more than > > just a great human. > > > > And the New Testament fully explicates these prophecies as > fulfilled > > in the person of Jesus. There was a birth in Bethlehem, for > Messiah > > was to be born of the family of Judah. He would be known as Jesus. > > But the Son of God did not begin at Bethlehem. John 1 claims that > he > > was the eternal Word, God himself, who created everything that > > exists, and that in time he became flesh and dwelt among us. > > Philippians 2:6 makes it clear that he is God, and that he set > aside > > the use of some of his attributes to take on the form of the > human, > > and die for the sins of the world. Titus 2:13 equates Jesus with > > God. Romans 9:6 describes him as God, who is blessed forever. And > > Revelation 5:13 and 14 portray Christ as deity. These are but a > few > > of the New Testament passages that one would consider first in > > dealing with the topic. > > > > *****This is an important point, and not an appalling belief at > > all. Jesus IS the only begotten Son; He is God who became flesh; > > this is the crux of Christianity, and the crux of the Second > Coming. > > If this point is not true, then the entire Biblical teachings, > > prophets' predictions and faith of many falls apart. It is not > that > > the popes and priests altered or changed things to suit > themselves; > > it is that the bible itself speaks of Jesus, His nature and His > > coming throughout. To not accept this point means considering that > > the entire Scriptures are based on a fallacy, and are not from > God. > > Love, Semira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " jagbir singh " > > <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > , " jagbir singh " > > > > <adishakti_org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " i also want you to quote what Jesus said about being the Son > of > > > God because i find the word " begotten " to be repulsive as it > > > implies that God had somehow planted His seed into Mother Mary. " > > > > > > > , " semirafields " > > > <semirafields> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Jagbir, > > > > This is not the first time I have heard someone express this > > > > sentiment; a Muslim once told me the same thing when he was > > saying > > > > why he could not believe that Jesus could be the Son of God, > but > > > > only a prophet. > > > > I do not see why this issue is such a problem for people; it > is > > a > > > > question of conditionings, and what we perceive to > > be 'repulsive' > > > > or 'ugly' and 'shameful'. How can God's own creation be > > repulsive > > > > and ugly to Him? > > > > Best wishes, Semira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Semira and Carol, > > > > > > i am comfortable with Son of God but why use the > word " begotten " ? > > It > > > is clear that this word is repulsive if used to confirm that is > > how > > > God created Jesus. Check the meaning here: > > > > > > > > > be·got·ten (b & #301;-g & #335;t'n) > > > v. > > > A past participle of beget. > > > > > > be·get (b & #301;-g & #277;t') > > > tr.v., -got (-g & #335;t'), -got·ten (-g & #335;t'n) or -got, - > > get·ting, -gets. > > > To father; sire. > > > To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more > violence. > > > > > > beget > > > > > > verb > > > > > > To be the biological father of: breed, father, get, procreate, > > sire. > > > See kin. > > > To cause to come into existence: breed, create, engender, > father, > > > hatch, make, originate, parent, procreate, produce, sire, spawn. > > > Idioms: give birth rise to. > > > > > > The adjective begotten has one meaning: > > > > > > Meaning #1: (of offspring) generated by procreation > > > > > > > > > http://www.answers.com/topic/begotten > > > > > > > > > If popes and priests centuries ago believed that that was the > way > > > Mother Mary became pregnant we should not blindly follow them. > > This > > > is the problem with Christian churches. Sometimes theology is > > > repeatedly drilled into the faithful till they become immune to > > > logic and deaf to repulsive ideas. Believing that Jesus is the > Son > > > of God is just not good enough. Insisting that He is the only > > > begotten Son will ensure for all times that no other woman will > be > > > inpregnated by the Divine again. That is why i find that word so > > > repulsive. i wonder what Muslims think of this appaling belief. > > > > > > love and best wishes, > > > > > > jagbir > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.