spacedOut

I’ve been reading about some of the controversies in the early Christian church, and I came across a concept that I had never really considered when I was a Christian. What surprised me was that the concept is so straight forward, I can’t believe it never dawned on me before.

I was brought up to believe that Jesus had always existed, and was on the same “level” as God. In fact for all eternity up to a point, they were really one and the same. Then at a certain time in human history, God sent Jesus to earth, taking the form of a human, to save man from sin. I had several problems with this concept, but the two major ones were 1) regardless of the “Trinity” speak, we were talking about a polytheistic religion, and 2) the bizarre concept of God sacrificing himself to himself.

But what if Jesus did not exist until he was born on this earth? And, what if he could not assume the role of a deity until he proved himself worthy to God? This idea doesn’t answer all the questions, but I would suggest that it does make some of the story a little more coherent.

For example, let’s just say that God has always existed. God creates man with the full knowledge that man is not perfect and will mess up. That’s ok because God has a plan to have a son that will deal with the issue. At the right time, God impregnates a human female with his “seed”. The resulting being is different from the angels and the humans because he will be an actual offspring of God, not just a “creation”.

So, Jesus is born and grows up. However, Jesus is sort of a hybrid. He’s part God, but part human (kind of like Mr. Spock). Therefore, he has an inside track into the mind of God, but he is human. So, he is subject to emotions, feelings, and temptations just like any other human (i.e. temptation in the desert). This would also explain the confusing scripture(s) about how Jesus is a little lower than God, doesn’t know the time of his second coming, etc. It also makes the whole father-son scenario seem a little more credible since Jesus was truly a begotten child, not an entity who has existed as long as God. Anyway, during his ministry Jesus rises to the occasion and lives his life perfectly in the eyes of God. However, the possibility always existed that he could fail, he could succumb to his human side.

Now, it’s crunch time. For whatever reason, God needs a perfect blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of all humanity. Up to now, Jesus has fit the bill, but he still has a little ways to go. Jesus himself (his human side) is not too confident that he can do this (i.e. the sweat drops of blood in the garden). Then when the crucifixion is actually taking place, Jesus feels the connection to the mind of God (that he has had since birth) being severed (i.e. why have you forsaken me?). Maybe it’s because God has to turn away from sin, or it’s simply the fact that Jesus’ human side is dying – who knows.

Now, Jesus is dead and his spirit goes to wherever they go when people die. It this point, God and Jesus meet for the first time as 100% spiritual beings (remember, Jesus has now shed his human side). God is pretty happy with his son and rewards him by making him first officer of the universe, so to speak. And since Jesus was part human his first 33 years, God makes Jesus ambassador to all humanity. And as an added bonus, he lets Jesus assume a human form one more time to say bye to his human friends before he begins his new life in heaven. So, the new pecking order is 1) God, the supreme being; 2) Jesus, God’s son (fully a spirit being now, but with a human history); 3) the angels, a creation of God but not infallible (i.e. Satan); and 4) humans, biological creatures - definitely not infallible.

Now, this concept does NOT address why God would require a blood sacrifice to redeem humanity, but I believe it does make a little better sense of the father-son story. And I’m not too sure where the Holy Spirit fits in, but that’s for another day.

Again, I’m no longer a Christian, but if I were – I believe I would have more respect for this description of Jesus than the one where he has always been God…

Magus55

Sorry, that explanation doesn't work ( Biblically speaking anyway):



Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

spacedOut

Well, the first scripture doesn't support or deny the idea. It basically says "The Word" and "God" are the same thing. Maybe the Word is God's intention to conceive a son at some point in the future.

The second scripture seems to support the idea very well. Paraphrased, God decided to put his plan into action and became a father by having a son.

Rational BAC

Interesting discussion about the trinity and about the reasons for Christ's death and resurrection.

My opinion-----------Jesus did not die to save Man from original sin or any other sin. There is nothing in the Bible to justify anything like this kind of idea.

Jesus most obviously died to show us by His personal example that there is an afterlife for all. -------Maybe some conditions there to achieve that---Probably should not be a materialist. Definitely should not be rich. And a few others.-------like giving away all your possessions

(would seem like materialist Americans with their SUV's in their garages and their lifestyle full of silly crap will all be going to hell)

And of course treating the lowest of the low with the same compassion and reverance you would treat the Lord our God.---------------------which most obviously includes pimps and prostitutes and criminals and the worst low life you can imagine-

-N'est-ce pas?

Jesus, ----the God made into Man---- died and was resurrected to show us all that an afterlife is possible. And that was the only reason for it. The rest of it (original sin and sin in general) was made up centuries later to reconcile Genesis with the life of Christ.----------and not very convincingly.

Now the trinity part----------Lord knows---Christianity as represented in the Bible is hardly monotheistic. Council of Nicea supposedly solved this problem. Or did they really?----------------------------Read the Bible--there are most definitely 3 different spirits there. You would have to be seriously stupid not to see that.

I have no problem with 3 spirits representing God as is very obvious in the Bible. And I consider myself very Christian.

Is the idea of a tripartied God such a hang up? Why?

NonHomogenized

so... the word was "sex"? Awesome! I suddenly have that much more respect for the christian mythos. Now it ranks almost half as high as the sex-based pagan ones, which rank only slightly below the lovecraftian/cthulhu one, which is the coolest mythos I can think of, offhand.

Soul Invictus

I concur, however I just want to know where the Christians I meet base their assertions for this type of thinking behind.

abe smith

As nobody KNOWS anything real about "Jesus", therefore anyone can assert any speculations s/he likes; and hence the answer to the OP qy at this thread is (as so-often before) a matter of *opinion* and can never be "a fact". So go ahead: fantasy-on, and much good may it do you or anyone.

I wonder if thinking-about this kind of stuff is a neurophysiological built-in? (E.g. some such instances appear to correlate w/ the presence of temporal-lobe lesions. And no, I don't like *post hoc ergo propter hoc* "evidence".)

mike_decock

I'm reading The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels right now and the concept you are expressing seems to be more in line with the Gnostics than the Orthodox view. Personally, I think it's more tenable as well.

The Gnostics also criticized the Orthodox concept of original sin/blood sacrfice as being unenlightened. They saw the resurrection as a Spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one. By coming to an understanding of this, the Gnostic could be on the same level/be unified with Christ and have the same relationship with God that Jesus did.

Interesting stuff.

-Mike...

PopeInTheWoods

spacedOut,

The first part of your description sounds a bit like the heresy of Arianism or one of its precursors (gross oversimplification: Jesus was a created being and not "God's" co-equal), and seems to contradict the Nicene Creed ("... eternally begotten of the Father ... , begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.").

So some might not consider your view of Jesus as "christian", even if it's definitely Abrahamic theistic.

Andy

Biff the unclean

I wonder if thinking-about this kind of stuff is a neurophysiological built-in? (E.g. some such instances appear to correlate w/ the presence of temporal-lobe lesions. And no, I don't like *post hoc ergo propter hoc* "evidence".)

I can't help but notice how closely this resembles the intense conversations that small boys so love.
A colleague has a foster child (and yes the agency does know that the kid gets to play with the gorillas) who is deeply into video games. When his friends come around they come with great stacks of sacred bubble gum cards (held together by holy rubber bands) On each of these cards is a different Japanese video game cartoon character. They sit there for hours, like tiny Rabbis, debating what super powers each round eyed character posses.
The difference is that these little boys know make believe when they see it.