My take on Jesus

[Alienist]

This is just my personal belief. Obviously I believe in Jesus, however I don't follow the traditions or worship Jesus. I just aknowledge his power and existence. I think it is impossible for him to be the son of God AND a descendent of King David. In the New Testament,in the first couple of pages it goes on to list the descendents of King David and Joseph, his surrogate father is the one in line of King David and it states it quite clearly. Mary however isn't but Jesus' parents are God and Mary. He either in line of King David or the son of God but he can't be both. I don't think he is God. He states that he is inferior to God, so he can't be God or be equal to God. They are 2 seperate beings to me, since it says God gave the world his son. If Jesus is God, than that means God sent himself, not his son. If God wanted to send a messiah, why not create a human out of thin air instead of impregnating Mary? Also if Jesus is God, than it's God who is and always was the savior and messiah, and the Jews didn't have to wait for a savior because the "savior" was there the entire time. After all didn't Yahweh rescue them from the Egyptians? Why wait for a savior if they already have one that was there in the first place?

I don't think Jesus is God or an aspect of God or even the son of God. I believe that he is a human with powers beyond otherhumans and could be considered god-like. He knew things other humans didn't know and acess to powers most mortals didn't know. The same thing applies to the Buddha. Both humans have unlocked their potential and became gods on Earth. That's what I believe. I acknowledge Jesus, I just acknoledge him in a different way and wondered if anyone else agreed.

[Claude]

Re: My take on Jesus

I tend to take a very Gnostic stance on Christianity. In this mode of thought, Jesus is an aspect of God (not Yahweh) that compliments Sophia. He chose to descend in mortal form to reveal the truth about God and convince people to leave Yahweh and his lies. Since Jesus is an Aeon in Gnosticism, he is worthy of worship or at least high regard.

Okay Gnostic lesson is over. You bring up an interesting point about why wouldn't Yahweh just create Jesus instead of impregnate a mortal. This isn't a prevalent idea in Christianity, but I believe the the gods, regardless of which pantheon we're speaking of, are bound to nature and the natural law. A lot of myths have the gods just accidentally created or made from procreation. Since neither of these things set them apart from the universe, wouldn't it be logical to assume that despite their great power they are bound to the same primal laws as all other beings? If you use this logic and apply it to the Immaculate Conception, then it makes perfect sense that Yahweh would have to use a mortal to create Jesus.

However, then we run into the issue of why could Yahweh create Adam, Eve and Lilith but not Jesus? It's really just a big circular conundrum, which is why I put very little stock in religious stories.

[Alienist]

Re: My take on Jesus

I tend to take a very Gnostic stance on Christianity. In this mode of thought, Jesus is an aspect of God (not Yahweh) that compliments Sophia. He chose to descend in mortal form to reveal the truth about God and convince people to leave Yahweh and his lies. Since Jesus is an Aeon in Gnosticism, he is worthy of worship or at least high regard.

Okay Gnostic lesson is over. You bring up an interesting point about why wouldn't Yahweh just create Jesus instead of impregnate a mortal. This isn't a prevalent idea in Christianity, but I believe the the gods, regardless of which pantheon we're speaking of, are bound to nature and the natural law. A lot of myths have the gods just accidentally created or made from procreation. Since neither of these things set them apart from the universe, wouldn't it be logical to assume that despite their great power they are bound to the same primal laws as all other beings? If you use this logic and apply it to the Immaculate Conception, then it makes perfect sense that Yahweh would have to use a mortal to create Jesus.

However, then we run into the issue of why could Yahweh create Adam, Eve and Lilith but not Jesus? It's really just a big circular conundrum, which is why I put very little stock in religious stories.

Of course but that's assuming that Yaweh from the Old Testament is the same as the one in the New Testament. They have pretty different personalities though since the one in the old testament was well meaning, but was jealous, strict and not as forgiving as was only concerned with his people while the one in the New Testament is a lot more passive and forgiving and was willing to open himself to everyone. People say that he changed his mind, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. Also that is true that they all follow nature's laws despite being more powerful than us. They are certainly not omnipotent no matter what the texts say. I see Jesus as a powerful teacher, a god-like being on Earth unlike the other deities who didn't seem to be born on Earth. A lot of the deities come from "The Heavens" whatever that is though, which is in space, in another realm or dimension but I don't think they are from Earth.

[Daughter of Toothless]

Re: My take on Jesus

Ooh yay! Jesus! I love this topic when it's from the views of multiple faiths. I have a lot of theories on this. To me, Jesus is a spirit that Christians see as a god. I don't think he and Yahweh are the same being. He was definitely the son of God; not in the biological way, but the spiritual way, just like I'm a child of Toothless in a spiritual way. Jesus worked with Magick that came from God, whether he was a witch or sorcerer or whatever.

Another theory is that God was working through Jesus so he could get a better understanding of human behavior so he can become a better ruler and person to his followers. What if he realized all those things he did in the Old Testament was wrong and wanted to make up for it? What if he didn't die for everyone's sins, but died for his own? What if the crucifixion was a way to redeem himself for the things he has done?

I don't have much else to say for now except that this is a very complex topic. One man, so many theories.

[Cobra]

Re: My take on Jesus

My view on Jesus is that he was a man with a very powerful, loving spirit and thus had a strong positive aura that drew people to him. I think Jesus was very well-connected spiritually and had an incredible amount of pure love, which I call the perfect emotion / feeling, in his soul. He preached this love that he believed in and I think he still exists as one of the higher, loving spirits.

[FAABulousFemme]

Re: My take on Jesus

I've been thinking a lot about this recently; I personally believe that Jesus is a god in and of himself, who took on a human form in order that he could understand the humans who inhabited the world. I'm not sure whether he's the actual son of the Old Testament god (whom I call Mother), but they are certainly somewhat connected. Somewhat like Daughter of Toothless, I think the Old Testament and New Testament gods are not the same, or at the very least have had a change in perspective. I believe that perhaps this is why Jesus took a human form, to help understand the human world and educate them in a new way of living.

[Malflick]

Re: My take on Jesus

The old and new testament Gods aren't quite as different as people say they they are-- certainly YHWH is a lot nicer in the NT, but that has to do (and I feel like I say this in every post I make lol) with covenants-- YHWH is a God that makes deals with humanity, and all of them God basically gives people all they could hope for in exchange for worship and following a few rules. YHWH always kept the good and bad parts of deals, and after humanity failed to live up to the other covenants, YHWH was nice enough to give us one that was pretty chill.

anyways, my take on Jesus: incarnation of Logos (the word of god made flesh) sacrificed for our sins, not a deity, yada yada yada.

[Azvanna]

Re: My take on Jesus

Hi Alienist,
You have some really good questions that many people have asked in the past. I'd like to address some of them from a Christian perspective. I feel like I talk a lot about Christianity on this forum heaps more than I want to. I'd rather just read about Druidry. lol ^.^ But I feel when there are questions and I know what to say, I must speak. Over active throat Chakra? lolol
If you've heard this all before, feel free to skip over. Maybe other's haven't, so I'll write it anyway.

I think it is impossible for him to be the son of God AND a descendent of King David. In the New Testament,in the first couple of pages it goes on to list the descendents of King David and Joseph, his surrogate father is the one in line of King David and it states it quite clearly. Mary however isn't but Jesus' parents are God and Mary.

As yet, I don't have a satisfactory answer for the question of ancestry. It's interesting that Biblical writers used Joseph's genealogy instead of Mary's. I know that bloodlines were recorded through the father's side. Is it possible Mary was an unverifiable descendant of David? I think so. However, I need to research that some more ^.^

He states that he is inferior to God, so he can't be God or be equal to God....They are 2 seperate beings to me, since it says God gave the world his son. If Jesus is God, than that means God sent himself, not his son.

I'm assuming you refer to John 14:28 “You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.” The word 'greater' in this context does not mean in quality of nature, it means in rank. A different role/rank does not necessarily mean a diminishment in quality of divinity. Theologically speaking, Jesus is the 'doer.' Jesus is the son who was sent. He was also the one through whom all things were made. As an imperfect parallel, consider that you are equal to your father in quality of personhood (ie you're both human), but within the family you have the rank of son/daughter and your father has authority over you. Jesus' submission to the Father does not diminish his deity. Also note that the three Godheads 'bear witness' to each other.. they are in agreeance, they think as one (1 John 5:7). In perfect unison, I think there is co-submission.

If God wanted to send a messiah, why not create a human out of thin air instead of impregnating Mary?

A wonderful question that takes some exploring. Some good texts include Romans 5, 8, and 1 Corinthians 15. There's no explicit statements to the question 'why not create a human out of thin air' but here are my musings. I think that the messiah being of human nature was necessary for the path of redemption. When the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, Jesus became fully human and also fully divine. Think here: 1+1 = 1. He has God nature and human nature. In this way, he experienced life as a human would - be born, live, die. I believe it was a way to overcome the curse (which was not accidental.. and I'll get to that). In this, Love is victorious. In our fallen state, Love comes to us. Love becomes 'fallen' and through submission, breaks the power of separation. Through Adam and Eve, we inherited separation, through Christ the Last Adam, we inherit union.

Also if Jesus is God, than it's God who is and always was the savior and messiah, and the Jews didn't have to wait for a savior because the "savior" was there the entire time. After all didn't Yahweh rescue them from the Egyptians? Why wait for a savior if they already have one that was there in the first place?

Exactly. The Hebrew language is pictorial. In the creation myth, the story of the cross is laid out within the symbols. I have no proof to offer you of this except for that it was shown to me by a guy called Shane Willard who has been mentored by a Rabbi, whose lectures you may find online. The Path of Redemption was laid out as the world was being formed. It was always meant to be this way. I believe there are parallels between the Fall myth and the Path of Redemption. I don't believe the Fall was an accident, and to be honest I don't believe the myth is a factual retelling, so much as a mirror-prophecy of what was to come. In his sermon 'the Progression of the Name,' Shane outlines the various names that God had revealed, and in doing so revealing more and more of his character. This culminates to the name of Jesus, the name of ultimate love and union, his most powerful name.

My take on Jesus is that he is the message of the divine within. Whether simply an enlightened historical figure, a lesser deity, God Himself.. whatever you want to say of him, the message is that the Divine is within all people without exception, there for the taking in the name of love. We need no priest, no place, no particular way of life, nothing at all to be in union with God because he is a part of us. God living within. That is the message of the gospel and the reason for Jesus' existence.