S
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1. What was the self conscious theology of Jesus? Meaning, what did he believe?
2. Where did Jesus get his theology?
Is that possible to get theology from yourself? I'm not sure I understand.
I understand/define theology as a persons view of what God reveals about himself, not whatever a person imagines god might be like. If a man creates his own ideas about god, I would not call that a theology, but deification of a philosophy or system of knowledge (or biblically put, just "idolatry").
I find this to be a pretty big over site of most religions I know of. They either don't say where they get their information about God, or they plainly were not theologies at all. I respect both types in as far as I can understand them, but I'm wondering specifically about Christianity's founder because like you quoted, he claims to get his theology from God himself.
Jesus' bible would have been "the law and the prophets" so he got his point of view about God (and apparently, himself) from what he was reading in those scriptures.
He certainly knew them backward and forward according to the gospels
Did Jesus simply imagine he was God? Couldn't be. If he did he wouldn't be god.
On the one hand, he must have known it if he was God, and therefore, he didn't need to read anything. I get that.
In the other hand, he was fully human, and I wonder what is left of his humanity if he was fully intelligent/self aware as an infant. I mean, the big picture surely developed for him within his own mind. I imagine it culminated somewhat at his baptism maybe? I don't know.
I realize the self conscious stuff is also divine mystery, and I think that's why I'm going to his theology. There of course is the point that he IS scripture. But I think I'm wondering about his specific interpretation of his specific canon at the time (at the time being the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures I suppose).
Perhaps he saw beyond these books, and spoke in terms of what Israel could recognize, for their sake... That sounds strange.
Okay, I think I have an example. On the cross, he is dying, surrendering himself fully to the will of the father (who's plan it was) and he sings a psalm! We don't have the tune, but those were songs, right? I mean he would have known the tune, and I feel like that usually gets read like he was just "quoting an appropriate verse" to the crowd. It makes me wonder because there must be something more to his knowledge of scripture than a bare systematic knowledge regarding himself.
I'm swinging wildly here. Not sure if that's clear enough.
Is that possible to get theology from yourself? I'm not sure I understand.
I understand/define theology as a persons view of what God reveals about himself, not whatever a person imagines god might be like. If a man creates his own ideas about god, I would not call that a theology, but deification of a philosophy or system of knowledge (or biblically put, just "idolatry")
I find this to be a pretty big over site of most religions I know of. They either don't say where they get their information about God, or they plainly were not theologies at all. I respect both types in as far as I can understand them, but I'm wondering specifically about Christianity's founder because like you quoted, he claims to get his theology from God himself.
Jesus' bible would have been "the law and the prophets" so he got his point of view about God (and apparently, himself) from what he was reading in those scriptures.
He certainly knew them backward and forward according to the gospels
Jesus told us three things that answer your query..
a. His words are the Father's words
b. His works are the Father's works
c. He only does as He sees the Father doing
Jesus told us three things that answer your query..
a. His words are the Father's words
b. His works are the Father's works
c. He only does as He sees the Father doing
Theological liberalism treats "the historical Jesus" as a mere man, and treats the Gospels as a patchwork of human sayings. You won't find the truth in that direction.Yet you don't see many elaborations on the idea, except in liberal stances on historical Jesus theoretics.
When one starts with false premises, one ends up with false conclusions. The Gospels -- Divine Revelation -- do not represent Jesus as merely a "Jewish teacher". Even the Koran represents Him as a prophet.There is one intrinsic question which anyone, whatever their religious persuasion, may be compelled to ask. Would a Jewish teacher who walked the byways of Galilee in the first century have endorsed the various Creeds and dogmas formulated in his name hundreds of years later? This question may appear to be a theological one but it is certainly possible to find the historical answer.
The PRIMARY historical record is the Gospels. The SECONDARY historical background could be other writings. And according to the Gospels Jesus declared Himself to be God. He proclaimed to the Jews on one occasion "Before Abraham was I AM" (Jn 8:58). "I AM" is the name of the same LORD God who commissioned Moses (Exod 3:14). Therefore the Jews saw this as a claim to Deity, but because they refused to acknowledge Him, they took up stones to stone Him.From what is known of the historical background, is it possible that Jesus of Nazareth regarded himself as God?
And did you get the import of that rebuke? What Christ was telling this man is that if you believe that I am good, then you must also believe that I am God.In the Gospel of Mark, the most consistent in conveying Jesus humanity, a man is represented as running up to Jesus and addressing him with the words Good master. Jesus response is a firm rebuke. Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone [Mark 10:18]
Did you get the import of this statement? Jesus is and was the eternal Word of God, who is God Himself (Jn 1:1-3). However, God the Son was entirely subject to the will of the Father while on this earth. Hence the above statement. At the same time "HE THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" (Phil 2:6).Even in John, the Gospel most inclined to emphasise Jesus quasi- divine status, he is depicted as stating quite categorically, the Father is greater than I [John 14:28].
This is simply a blatant misrepresentation of Christian beliefs, either through ignorance or through wilful blindness. Did you miss the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelation? The entire New Testament testifies to the Deity of Christ, but we will focus on just one verse, which stands unshakeable in the majority (99%) of all the Greek manuscripts (1 Timothy 3:16):It is impossible therefore to believe that the historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth could have had any knowledge of the elaborate non- Jewish theological speculations devised in his name and which still represent the way he is supposed to be understood by present day Christian devotees.
When one starts with false premises, one ends up with false conclusions. The Gospels -- Divine Revelation -- do not represent Jesus as merely a "Jewish teacher". Even the Koran represents Him as a prophet.
The word-play is between the similar pronunciation of the Hebrew word Yahweh (The Lord) The personal name of the Hebrew deity, and the word Ehye= I am. Such an assonance cannot be expressed in Greek between Kurios = Lord, and Eimi = I am.The PRIMARY historical record is the Gospels. The SECONDARY historical background could be other writings. And according to the Gospels Jesus declared Himself to be God. He proclaimed to the Jews on one occasion "Before Abraham was I AM" (Jn 8:58). "I AM" is the name of the same LORD God who commissioned Moses (Exod 3:14). Therefore the Jews saw this as a claim to Deity, but because they refused to acknowledge Him, they took up stones to stone Him.
And did you get the import of that rebuke? What Christ was telling this man is that if you believe that I am good, then you must also believe that I am God.
Did you get the import of this statement? Jesus is and was the eternal Word of God, who is God Himself (Jn 1:1-3). However, God the Son was entirely subject to the will of the Father while on this earth. Hence the above statement. At the same time "HE THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" (Phil 2:6).
This is simply a blatant misrepresentation of Christian beliefs, either through ignorance or through wilful blindness. Did you miss the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelation? The entire New Testament testifies to the Deity of Christ, but we will focus on just one verse, which stands unshakeable in the majority (99%) of all the Greek manuscripts (1 Timothy 3:16):
Quite obviously you have scant knowledge of the New Testament other than a few "proof texts" to try and show that Jesus was merely a Jewish rabbi. That is sad indeed.
Theological liberalism treats "the historical Jesus" as a mere man, and treats the Gospels as a patchwork of human sayings. You won't find the truth in that direction.
well put friend.praise jesus Christ our lord and saviour.Only in its application, and only if you are the Author. You continue:
Considering for now that Jesus is speaking the Truth, what do you believe He is trying to teach us about Himself? (let's start with what He revealed about Himself in my first post above) You continue:
Actually, He claims to be God Himself (take a close look what He says about Himself in the Scriptures in my first post). You continue:
You are, of course, correct. However, He expanded/corrected/refined our understanding about what the OT really meant. The Author Himself taught us the Truth about Himself and about what was written in His word. IOW, God taught us "theology" directly when He walked among us in various pre-incarnate states, when He was Incarnate, when He was Risen, and in His present, Glorified state. You continue:
As did many in His day. None, of course, could have possibly understood them like Jesus did apart from His help.
Yours and His,
David
Theological liberalism treats "the historical Jesus" as a mere man, and treats the Gospels as a patchwork of human sayings. You won't find the truth in that direction.
N.T. Wright is not exactly a conservative either. He has some strange views.There are many scholars of "the historical Jesus", such as N.T. Wright, who are not theological liberals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?