The Cosmic Person in the New Testament - Part 1

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

In Part 7 of The New Humanity, we concluded with:

 

(P.111) " The final point here is that this rebuilding of each person, the

creation and humanity into one is conceived as coming to fulfillment in a

person, the person of Christ. For many people this is a great difficulty for

they cannot see the stellar universe or the universe of the atom in terms of a

person. But it is in fact a very profound insight. As St. Thomas Aquinas said,

the person is the highest being in the universe. We understand that matter is

the lowest level of organisation, it is comparatively unstructured. The atomic

level, the living cell and the plant mark stages in organisation, in the

development of a more complex structure. The level of animal intelligence is a

further stage and finally the level of the human being is reached. Each human

person has the capacity for knowledge and love, that is, a capacity to structure

the universe around them and to further its organisation. A person is

essentially a being capable of knowledge and love, which means being capable of

receiving the universe into oneself by knowledge, that is, by symbol and

language, and capable of acting on the universe by art and science. (P.112) And

so " person " is really the supreme reality in the universe, the point at which

the universe enters into consciousness. It is significant that nearly all

ancient people saw the ultimate Reality in terms of a person. In Hinduism we

have the 'purusha', the cosmic Person, in whom the whole universe comes

together. In Buddhism we have the 'tathagata', the one who has reached Reality

and who is the supreme Person. In Islam there is the " universal man " , 'al-insan

al Kamil' and in Christianity we have Christ as the cosmic Person, the one in

whom all things were created. " All things were created through him and for him

.... and in him all things hold together. " (Colossians 1:16,17) He is the person

who personalises the universe and the universe comes to a head as it were, in

him. In this way the whole of humanity is seen as growing, as St. Paul put it,

to mature manhood, to " the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. "

(Ephesians 4:13) The whole of humanity is growing to the full stature of the

man, Jesus Christ, who is none other than the primordial Man who was there in

the beginning and who has now been revealed as the Lord, uniting all humanity

with God. That is the vision of St. Paul and of the New Testament as a whole. In

the next two chapters we will trace out this theme of the cosmic Person in

Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, for it is one of the great themes of

all the major religions. "

 

Here now is Part 1 of " The Cosmic Person in the New Testament " .

 

Enjoy,

 

violet

 

 

The Cosmic Person in the New Testament - Part 1

 

(P.113) In traditional Christian theology Jesus is commonly conceived as God and

the central Christian doctrine is conceived in terms of God becoming man. But

this is in fact a comparatively late form of theology which was crystallised at

the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It is quite different from the manner in which

Jesus is presented in the New Testament. I want to suggest that this theology,

though perfectly correct and legitimate in itself, is a particular kind of

theologicial language which was developed over many centuries in the West and

certainly corresponded with people's needs at the time, but today presents for

most people an insuperable difficulty. Examples of this language are, " God

became man " , " He came down from heaven " and " God appeared on earth " . These

images, which were quite natural to people in the past, now appear as

essentially mythological and make the Gospel message appear totally unreal and

irrelevant. But this language, as I have said, is not the language of the New

Testament itself. In this chapter it will be shown that the New Testament has a

completely different perspective. It does not start at all from Jesus as God but

from Jesus as man. Jesus himself never speaks of himself as God. His favourite

designation of himself is as Son of man, which in Hebrew and Aramaic is

practically equivalent to Man. After his resurrection his disciples came to ask

themselves who this Man was, and interpreted his life and message in the light

of the Jewish tradition as prophet, priest, king, Messiah, Lord, Son of God, and

finally right at the end of the New Testament period began to use the word

" God " , but even then with great caution. (P.114) In other words, to speak of

Jesus as God is to use a language which was only arrived at after long

reflection and has a very specific meaning. To use it as a general term without

proper qualification can only be profoundly misleading.

 

It is particularly misleading when it is seen in the context of other religious

traditions. For a Muslim to say that the man Jesus was God is the ultimate

blasphemy. It is to " associate " a creature with the Creator and to deny the

absolute transcendence of the one God. For a Hindu it presents an opposite

difficulty. For a Hindu there is no difficulty in speaking of Jesus as God since

in Hinduism every human being is potentially divine and anyone who has realised

his divinity is entitled to be called God or Bhagavan. Jesus thus appears to him

simply as an 'avatara', one of the many forms in which God has appeared on

earth. For many Catholics also, it must be admitted, to speak of Jesus as God is

to think that he is a divine being appearing on earth. As Karl Rahner has

argued, many Catholics are monophysites without knowing it, believing only in

Christ's divine nature. That is, they think of Jesus as God appearing on earth

and not as he appears in the New Testament, as a man standing in a unique

relation to God.

 

The language of later theology is a typical example of that abstract, logical,

analytical thought which is characteristic of the Western mind as opposed to the

concrete, symbolic, synthetic thought which is characteristic of the Bible and

of all ancient thought. Thus the word " God " in the New Testament, as Karl Rahner

has shown, is never used as an abstract term but normally signifies God the

Father. (cf. the word 'theos' in the New Testament, in Karl Rahner, 'Theological

Investigations. vol.i.) There are, in fact, only six occasions in the whole of

the New Testament where the name of God appears to be given to Jesus, and all of

these are qualified in some way. (P.115) The only absolutely unequivocal

occasion is the saying of Thomas in St. John's Gospel, " My Lord and my God " .

(John 20:28) This is an expression of devotion rather than of theology, but it

marks the exact point when the new language began to develop. A little later, at

the beginning of the second century, St. Ignatius of Antioch began to use it

quite freely. But in the New Testament as a whole it remains abnormal and is the

result of a gradual development of thought.

 

A New Vision of Reality (Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and

Christian Faith)

Bede Griffiths

Templegate Publishers - Springfield, Illinois

ISBN 0-87243-180-0

Pgs. 113-115

[Guest guest]

Dear Violet and all,

 

Thank you for a topic i so badly needed, since i know Jesus never

ever claimed Himself to be God Almighty. This fact will be very comforting and

relevant to all non-Christians who believe in Him, and want to take part in the

Resurrection.

 

i have updated this quote at www.adishakti.org:

 

" ...many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of

the divine... many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened

people.... A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space

or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue—and it doesn’t seem an

exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue. "

 

Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could

change everything

Nashville: Thomas Nelson's W Publishing Group, 1006, page 4.

 

The link, " Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine " , now

includes two of the latest posts (marked with an *):

 

Jesus through Sikh eyes

http://adishakti.org/_/jesus_through_sikh_eyes.htm

Jesus through Hindu eyes

http://adishakti.org/_/jesus_through_hindu_eyes.htm

*On admiring the religious other

http://adishakti.org/_/on_admiring_the_religious_other.htm

*Jesus never himself speaks of himself as God

http://adishakti.org/_/jesus_himself_never_speaks_of_himself_as_god.htm

 

warmest regards,

 

jagbir

 

>

> The Cosmic Person in the New Testament - Part 1

>

> (P.113) In traditional Christian theology Jesus is commonly

conceived as God and the central Christian doctrine is conceived in

terms of God becoming man. But this is in fact a comparatively late

form of theology which was crystallised at the Council of Nicaea in

325 AD. It is quite different from the manner in which Jesus is

presented in the New Testament. I want to suggest that this theology,

though perfectly correct and legitimate in itself, is a particular

kind of theologicial language which was developed over many centuries

in the West and certainly corresponded with people's needs at the

time, but today presents for most people an insuperable difficulty.

Examples of this language are, " God became man " , " He came down from

heaven " and " God appeared on earth " . These images, which were quite

natural to people in the past, now appear as essentially mythological

and make the Gospel message appear totally unreal and irrelevant. But

this language, as I have said, is not the language of the New

Testament itself. In this chapter it will be shown that the New

Testament has a completely different perspective. It does not start

at all from Jesus as God but from Jesus as man. Jesus himself never

speaks of himself as God. His favourite designation of himself is as

Son of man, which in Hebrew and Aramaic is practically equivalent to

Man. After his resurrection his disciples came to ask themselves who

this Man was, and interpreted his life and message in the light of

the Jewish tradition as prophet, priest, king, Messiah, Lord, Son of

God, and finally right at the end of the New Testament period began

to use the word " God " , but even then with great caution. (P.114) In

other words, to speak of Jesus as God is to use a language which was

only arrived at after long reflection and has a very specific

meaning. To use it as a general term without proper qualification can

only be profoundly misleading.

>

> It is particularly misleading when it is seen in the context of

other religious traditions. For a Muslim to say that the man Jesus

was God is the ultimate blasphemy. It is to " associate " a creature

with the Creator and to deny the absolute transcendence of the one

God. For a Hindu it presents an opposite difficulty. For a Hindu

there is no difficulty in speaking of Jesus as God since in Hinduism

every human being is potentially divine and anyone who has realised

his divinity is entitled to be called God or Bhagavan. Jesus thus

appears to him simply as an 'avatara', one of the many forms in which

God has appeared on earth. For many Catholics also, it must be

admitted, to speak of Jesus as God is to think that he is a divine

being appearing on earth. As Karl Rahner has argued, many Catholics

are monophysites without knowing it, believing only in Christ's

divine nature. That is, they think of Jesus as God appearing on earth

and not as he appears in the New Testament, as a man standing in a

unique relation to God.

>

> The language of later theology is a typical example of that

abstract, logical, analytical thought which is characteristic of the

Western mind as opposed to the concrete, symbolic, synthetic thought

which is characteristic of the Bible and of all ancient thought. Thus

the word " God " in the New Testament, as Karl Rahner has shown, is

never used as an abstract term but normally signifies God the Father.

(cf. the word 'theos' in the New Testament, in Karl

Rahner, 'Theological Investigations. vol.i.) There are, in fact, only

six occasions in the whole of the New Testament where the name of God

appears to be given to Jesus, and all of these are qualified in some

way. (P.115) The only absolutely unequivocal occasion is the saying

of Thomas in St. John's Gospel, " My Lord and my God " . (John 20:28)

This is an expression of devotion rather than of theology, but it

marks the exact point when the new language began to develop. A

little later, at the beginning of the second century, St. Ignatius of

Antioch began to use it quite freely. But in the New Testament as a

whole it remains abnormal and is the result of a gradual development

of thought.

>

> A New Vision of Reality (Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and

> Christian Faith)

> Bede Griffiths

> Templegate Publishers - Springfield, Illinois

> ISBN 0-87243-180-0

> Pgs. 113-115

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagbir and All,

 

i like the way you have presented this topic. There is more to come on this

topic, which i agree is badly needed. As you say, it will help non-Christians

who believe in Him and want to take part in the Resurrection.

 

warmest regards,

 

violet

 

 

, " jagbir singh "

<adishakti_org wrote:

>

> Dear Violet and all,

>

> Thank you for a topic i so badly needed, since i know Jesus never

> ever claimed Himself to be God Almighty. This fact will be very

comforting and relevant to all non-Christians who believe in Him, and

want to take part in the Resurrection.

>

> i have updated this quote at www.adishakti.org:

>

> " ...many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate

manifestation of the divine... many Buddhists see Jesus as one of

humanity's most enlightened people.... A shared reappraisal of Jesus'

message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently

needed religious dialogue—and it doesn't seem an exaggeration to say

that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue. "

>

> Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth

that could change everything

> Nashville: Thomas Nelson's W Publishing Group, 1006, page 4.

>

> The link, " Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine " , now

> includes two of the latest posts (marked with an *):

>

> Jesus through Sikh eyes

> http://adishakti.org/_/jesus_through_sikh_eyes.htm

> Jesus through Hindu eyes

> http://adishakti.org/_/jesus_through_hindu_eyes.htm

> *On admiring the religious other

> http://adishakti.org/_/on_admiring_the_religious_other.htm

> *Jesus never himself speaks of himself as God

> http://adishakti.org/_/jesus_himself_never_speaks_of_himself_as_god.htm

>

> warmest regards,

>

> jagbir

>

> >

> > The Cosmic Person in the New Testament - Part 1

> >

> > (P.113) In traditional Christian theology Jesus is commonly

> conceived as God and the central Christian doctrine is conceived in

> terms of God becoming man. But this is in fact a comparatively late

> form of theology which was crystallised at the Council of Nicaea in

> 325 AD. It is quite different from the manner in which Jesus is

> presented in the New Testament. I want to suggest that this theology,

> though perfectly correct and legitimate in itself, is a particular

> kind of theologicial language which was developed over many centuries

> in the West and certainly corresponded with people's needs at the

> time, but today presents for most people an insuperable difficulty.

> Examples of this language are, " God became man " , " He came down from

> heaven " and " God appeared on earth " . These images, which were quite

> natural to people in the past, now appear as essentially mythological

> and make the Gospel message appear totally unreal and irrelevant. But

> this language, as I have said, is not the language of the New

> Testament itself. In this chapter it will be shown that the New

> Testament has a completely different perspective. It does not start

> at all from Jesus as God but from Jesus as man. Jesus himself never

> speaks of himself as God. His favourite designation of himself is as

> Son of man, which in Hebrew and Aramaic is practically equivalent to

> Man. After his resurrection his disciples came to ask themselves who

> this Man was, and interpreted his life and message in the light of

> the Jewish tradition as prophet, priest, king, Messiah, Lord, Son of

> God, and finally right at the end of the New Testament period began

> to use the word " God " , but even then with great caution. (P.114) In

> other words, to speak of Jesus as God is to use a language which was

> only arrived at after long reflection and has a very specific

> meaning. To use it as a general term without proper qualification can

> only be profoundly misleading.

> >

> > It is particularly misleading when it is seen in the context of

> other religious traditions. For a Muslim to say that the man Jesus

> was God is the ultimate blasphemy. It is to " associate " a creature

> with the Creator and to deny the absolute transcendence of the one

> God. For a Hindu it presents an opposite difficulty. For a Hindu

> there is no difficulty in speaking of Jesus as God since in Hinduism

> every human being is potentially divine and anyone who has realised

> his divinity is entitled to be called God or Bhagavan. Jesus thus

> appears to him simply as an 'avatara', one of the many forms in which

> God has appeared on earth. For many Catholics also, it must be

> admitted, to speak of Jesus as God is to think that he is a divine

> being appearing on earth. As Karl Rahner has argued, many Catholics

> are monophysites without knowing it, believing only in Christ's

> divine nature. That is, they think of Jesus as God appearing on earth

> and not as he appears in the New Testament, as a man standing in a

> unique relation to God.

> >

> > The language of later theology is a typical example of that

> abstract, logical, analytical thought which is characteristic of the

> Western mind as opposed to the concrete, symbolic, synthetic thought

> which is characteristic of the Bible and of all ancient thought. Thus

> the word " God " in the New Testament, as Karl Rahner has shown, is

> never used as an abstract term but normally signifies God the Father.

> (cf. the word 'theos' in the New Testament, in Karl

> Rahner, 'Theological Investigations. vol.i.) There are, in fact, only

> six occasions in the whole of the New Testament where the name of God

> appears to be given to Jesus, and all of these are qualified in some

> way. (P.115) The only absolutely unequivocal occasion is the saying

> of Thomas in St. John's Gospel, " My Lord and my God " . (John 20:28)

> This is an expression of devotion rather than of theology, but it

> marks the exact point when the new language began to develop. A

> little later, at the beginning of the second century, St. Ignatius of

> Antioch began to use it quite freely. But in the New Testament as a

> whole it remains abnormal and is the result of a gradual development

> of thought.

> >

> > A New Vision of Reality (Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and

> > Christian Faith)

> > Bede Griffiths

> > Templegate Publishers - Springfield, Illinois

> > ISBN 0-87243-180-0

> > Pgs. 113-115

> >

>