Jesus is a man

originally posted by: DISRAELI

I am not forcing you to do anything; I'm just refusing to get involved myself in mystical wanderings.

Then basically what you're saying in this thread is, 'this is how it is, and I won't discuss alternatives'.

Dogmatism at it's finest.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule
However prinitive it might be, this thread was an exercise in describing and clarifying what Christian theology actually says.
Mysticism is a different religion. I am not going to get dragged into an argument about which belief system is better.

originally posted by: BlueMule
Then basically what you're saying in this thread is, 'this is how it is, and I won't discuss alternatives'.

What I say in every thread I do is "I'm not going to be dragged off-topic".
The wisdom of this policy is demonstrated by the truly obsessive thread de-railing exercise which was carried out by one of the other posters on this thread.
The concept of "on-topic" is not personal to me. It is the standard policy of ATS, applicable across the whole board.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Then you're preaching, not discussing.

Mysticism is on topic, because Jesus was a mystic. The non-mystics who built an empire based on him were ignorant and ambitious.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule
Is mysticism mentioned in the title of the thread or the opening post?
If not, then it is not on topic.

P.S. We must respect the real priorities of human life.
The Grand National is about to begin, and I am logging out until the race is over.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The topic is union of God and man. That's mysticism by definition.

"Mysticism is the art of union with Reality."

― Evelyn Underhill

👣

a reply to: DISRAELI

With all due respect, DISRAELI, you label any discussion that doesn't support the premise set forth in your OPs as off topic. By doing this you stifle the discourse and alienate your audience. You attempt to silence every idea that doesn't lead to your myopic, and frankly, boring but predictable premise.

mys·ti·cism
ˈmistəˌsizəm/Submit
noun
1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2.
belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

Mysticism, using the first definition is absolutely relevant to the topic of thread. But you want to put everything that you perceive as "mystic" into the second definition. Jesus was most certainly a mystic who taught mystical lessons, many of which HAD to be presented in parables.

As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."

^^^ That's about as "mystical" as it gets!

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: BlueMule
Is mysticism mentioned in the title of the thread or the opening post?
If not, then it is not on topic.

LOL!

Come on - Jesus clearly discussed mystical matters in real human terms to his disciples. His parables were brilliant, multi-layered lessons for all levels of understanding.

Plus, how else could one possibly fully love God with one's whole heart, body-mind, and soul without real communion with the Divine? One cannot! That was his point - to drive home the primacy of communion with God first.

Simply love, trust, and surrender to God fully, and you will become infilled by God and capable of such love. So this communion from the beginning is already a matter of the spirit.

If we cannot discuss this, I will move on. Thank you for what dialog we did have, especially the first part. Best to you.

a reply to: bb23108
But the opening post was not about what Jesus taught. It was about the way the creeds of the church describe Jesus.
I am familiar with the way ATS people justify off-topic interventions by saying things like "This thread is about the Bible, so anything I say about the Bible is on-topic". That is why I have a policy of guarding against it.

originally posted by: windword
With all due respect, DISRAELI, you label any discussion that doesn't support the premise set forth in your OPs as off topic. By doing this you stifle the discourse and alienate your audience. You attempt to silence every idea that doesn't lead to your myopic, and frankly, boring but predictable premise.

Not so. I label any discussion not relating to the opening post as off-topic.
Earlier on, Blue Mule made a post questioning whether Jesus could be called as human as the rest of us.
It wasn't supporting my viewpoint at all, but it was definitely related to the topic of the thread, and I respected that and responded.
Establishing a topic and keeping to it is the only way of gaining protection from the standard ATS tactic of "let's drag in every anti-Biblical objection we can think of, however irrelevant".

When I do threads about the teaching of Jesus (and I've done some "Jesus said;" threads in recent weeks), then I'm willing to discuss the teaching of Jesus.

originally posted by: BlueMule
The topic is union of God and man. That's mysticism by definition.

That doesn't justify expanding the topic to "mysticism in general".
The topic is Christ being man. If you want to call that mysticism, the topic is THAT aspect of mysticism only.

a reply to: DISRAELI


This is an interesting thread, DISRAELI, first time I've followed one through. I like your explanation, and realize you are merely intending to be "theologically" precise and do not want to discuss the veracity of any of the stories and reported supernatural events, so I will leave those alone.

But when I got to this:

Yes, but he did not say that EVERYBODY and the Father are one.

I decided to pitch in.

Yes, he did say that.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: bb23108
But the opening post was not about what Jesus taught. It was about the way the creeds of the church describe Jesus.
I am familiar with the way ATS people justify off-topic interventions by saying things like "This thread is about the Bible, so anything I say about the Bible is on-topic". That is why I have a policy of guarding against it.

Well it is certainly your right to insist the thread be as you want. But when you spoke of the full humanity of Jesus, I questioned you as to what you meant by that, and from there, of course, the discussion would move to what Jesus actually did humanly with his intimates in terms of serving them as their spiritual master.

Wouldn't that discussion possibly disclose something about his full humanity? I thought so.

I do think if I had said things more in line with your belief system, you would not have made such a fuss in terms of being off-topic later on.

Perhaps then you should have explicitly stated in your opening post a

WARNING: No one should discuss Jesus' Teachings when discussing this topic of Jesus' full humanity!

I wouldn't have posted at all, in that case.

So thanks for the clarification even if I don't agree with your approach.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Well, the wording in the text being quoted is "I and the Father are one" (John ch10 v30).
Do you have a reference to cite for "Everybody and the Father are one?"

In the near future I will be doing threads on the "Truly, truly" sayings of John's gospel, and that will bring out more clearly the effects of combining "Christ is one with the Father" with "The disciples of Christ are one with Christ".

a reply to: DISRAELI

I responded by pointing out that I would be discussing the passage in a future thread.

So,
not to be disrespectful, as you obviously are very well versed and knowledgeable about how "men" perceive the Divine and think about Jesus (a man).....

but, why do you post these threads if you don't want discussion? You exhibit controlling behavior, your advanced immersion into the details notwithstanding.

Perhaps you'd be happier teaching a freshman class who sits rapt at your feet and whom are required to be silent while you talk. Not exactly the best venue for that. Might you be happier behind a pulpit? Or, is that how you view ATS to begin with?

Just curious. What is your goal with the threads you make?
Your ultimate goal?

originally posted by: bb23108
Well it is certainly your right to insist the thread be as you want. But when you spoke of the full humanity of Jesus, I questioned you as to what you meant by that, and from there, of course, the discussion would move to what Jesus actually did humanly with his intimates in terms of serving them as their spiritual master.

And I did discuss that aspect of things. I drew your attention to what he said about sending the Holy Spirit.
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John ch16 vv12-14).
THAT is how he acts as their spiritual master, by sending the Holy Spirit which "descends upon" them later.

Perhaps then you should have explicitly stated in your opening post that no one should discuss Jesus' Teachings when discussing this topic of Jesus' full humanity. I wouldn't have posted at all, in that case.

I took it to be a standard rule on ATS that the opening post defines the thread topic, so I saw no need to say so explicitly.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I say, 'You are gods; you are all children of the Most High.'

Psalm 82:6

biblehub.com...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
but, why do you post these threads if you don't want discussion? You exhibit controlling behavior, your advanced immersion into the details notwithstanding.

The alternative is to allow the trolls to take over the threads, dragging in any irrelevant point they can think of.
I don't object to discussion of the thread topic. I only object to attempts to go outside the thread topic.
You must have noticed that derailing threads is the standard tactic of anti-religious trolling on this site.
So I put up my defences and stick to them.

What is your goal with the threads you make?
Your ultimate goal?

My goal is to serve the Christian faith.

a reply to: DISRAELI

My goal is to serve the Christian faith.

I see. Thanks.

It comes across as trying to silence dissenters, though. Just saying.
It doesn't serve the Christian faith very well to shush people.

Being defensive doesn't 'serve' the Christian faith, either. In my opinion. But, carry on.

a reply to: bb23108

Definitely, and if people really understood the meaning of their not being separate from God, they would also understand that this means, they do NOT exist in any kind of independent fashion whatsoever -

There is only one You. Thank god I don't think like you.

But since you brought that up, its also historical for people to claim we are all one also as a means to control them. If we are all one then we have to do what the "God Head" says, right? And that lol, is determined by men at the top of the religious hierarchy.

Thats also the road to ruin. Remove individual identity, get everyone indoctrinated to the common new order then point them all in one direction.

You realize thats what they do in military boot camp?