Will as Identity of God

[cloudyday2]

What I mean is, better to show interest than indifference,

Yep, and I thought of a way to explain this idea more clearly. For Jesus to be fully human and fully God the key attribute of God must be something that a human can match. A human can't be omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent, but a human CAN share the wishes of God (the "will" of God). Therefore God at his most basic level must be a set of wishes (a "will"). A human who learns to share the same wishes as God is God. So that is the goal for Christians - not obedience but a personal transformation to be more like God.

 

[Robban]

Yep, and I thought of a way to explain this idea more clearly. For Jesus to be fully human and fully God the key attribute of God must be something that a human can match. A human can't be omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent, but a human CAN share the wishes of God (the "will" of God). Therefore God at his most basic level must be a set of wishes (a "will"). A human who learns to share the same wishes as God is God. So that is the goal for Christians - not obedience but a personal transformation to be more like God.

Pretty good way to see it would reckon.
It takes away a lot of stress and anxiety.

I,m following a series of articles (stories)
of peoples encounter with the Rebbe.

Here is a clip from one by Rabbi Simcha Raz,
the author of "A Tzaddik in our time":
The life of Rabbi Aryeh Levin.

Rav Aryeh became distressed at being harshly criticized
by some elements of the ultra-orthodox community,
for showing love to those Jews whom they disapproved of.

The Rebbes response was, "We read in Pirkei Avot"
(Ethics of the fathers)
"One who is pleasing to his fellow human beings,
is pleasing to G-d."
He added,
It does not say" who is pleasing to the very righteous and pious people"

"It simply says, his fellow human beings,
the ordinary folk out in the street."

 

[cloudyday2]

Pretty good way to see it would reckon.
It takes away a lot of stress and anxiety.

I,m following a series of articles (stories)
of peoples encounter with the Rebbe.

Here is a clip from one by Rabbi Simcha Raz,
the author of "A Tzaddik in our time":
The life of Rabbi Aryeh Levin.

Rav Aryeh became distressed at being harshly criticized
by some elements of the ultra-orthodox community,
for showing love to those Jews whom they disapproved of.

The Rebbes response was, "We read in Pirkei Avot"
(Ethics of the fathers)
"One who is pleasing to his fellow human beings,
is pleasing to G-d."
He added,
It does not say" who is pleasing to the very righteous and pious people"

"It simply says, his fellow human beings,
the ordinary folk out in the street."

That reminds me of the saying "you can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time". But I guess it is good to try.

 

[cloudyday2]

In Genesis when Adam and Eve eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God says that if they have become like him. Knowing good and evil might be thought of as knowing the wishes of God - what God wants ("good") and what God doesn't want ("evil"). Of course the problem seems to be that Adam and Eve only took one bite from the fruit and gained an imperfect knowledge.

 

[Robban]

That reminds me of the saying "you can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time". But I guess it is good to try.

Mission impossible.

 

[Robban]

In Genesis when Adam and Eve eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God says that if they have become like him. Knowing good and evil might be thought of as knowing the wishes of God - what God wants ("good") and what God doesn't want ("evil"). Of course the problem seems to be that Adam and Eve only took one bite from the fruit and gained an imperfect knowledge.

The apple turned sour?

 

[Uber Genius]

Monothelitism (7th Century)
This heresy emerged in response to the Monophysite heresy (see above), but it also taught something denied by the Scripture. The name is derived from a Greek root that means “one will”. Monothelitism taught Jesus had two natures but only one will. Instead of having two cooperative wills (one Divine and one human), Jesus had one Divine-human “energia”.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople (610 – 638AD)

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Third Council of Constantinople; the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680 – 681AD)

see:Historic Heresies Related to the Nature of Jesus | Cold Case Christianity

Problem is "what ever has not been assumed has not been redeemed." (Gregory of Nanzianzen one of the Capadocian fathers). Jesus must have human body-soul composite as well as all the essential attributes of divinity.

One person-two natures.

So your idea first got its introduction I believe in Antioch in late 4th early 5th century and was known as monophysitism. Your version of that came about two centuries later although it may have been discussed in late 4th century I can't quite remember.

 

[cloudyday2]

Monothelitism (7th Century)
This heresy emerged in response to the Monophysite heresy (see above), but it also taught something denied by the Scripture. The name is derived from a Greek root that means “one will”. Monothelitism taught Jesus had two natures but only one will. Instead of having two cooperative wills (one Divine and one human), Jesus had one Divine-human “energia”.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople (610 – 638AD)

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Third Council of Constantinople; the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680 – 681AD)

see:Historic Heresies Related to the Nature of Jesus | Cold Case Christianity

Problem is "what ever has not been assumed has not been redeemed." (Gregory of Nanzianzen one of the Capadocian fathers). Jesus must have human body-soul composite as well as all the essential attributes of divinity.

One person-two natures.

So your idea first got its introduction I believe in Antioch in late 4th early 5th century and was known as monophysitism. Your version of that came about two centuries later although it may have been discussed in late 4th century I can't quite remember.

I'm suggesting something different. Jesus had only one nature and one will - both human. What made Jesus special was learning over time that God's desires are the best possible and eventually making his own desires perfectly synchronized to God's desires.

My hypothesis is that a spirit is simply a will or a desire. Anybody can theoretically be God by similarly synchronizing to God's desires.

 

[juvenissun]

So it seems to me that this way of defining the spirit/heart (as will) explains how Jesus could be fully human and fully God, and it also explains how Christians can become fully human and fully God (theosis).

Whatever the argument is, this single line of thought will invalidate it.

 

[Uber Genius]

I'm suggesting something different. Jesus had only one nature and one will - both human. What made Jesus special was learning over time that God's desires are the best possible and eventually making his own desires perfectly synchronized to God's desires.

My hypothesis is that a spirit is simply a will or a desire. Anybody can theoretically be God by similarly synchronizing to God's desires.

Thanks. I took your statement, "about fully God" to be related to the will.
So this is clearly not the teaching of scripture. So I'm assuming that you are making a case for a possible universe where this could happen.

It seems that qualities like omniscience -knowing all true claims and no false ones is not something that is a function of obedience to God's will.

It seems that omnipresence, omnipotence, aseity, eternality, moral perfection, being all-loving, all-just, things thought to be necessary to divinity, would not possibly be a function of obedience.

We could become able to operate in a fashion consistent with God's initial design. But divinity seems to be so completely different ontologically as to eliminate any possible theosis for occurring without significant equivocation of the term and elimination of the majority of attribute of God as necessary.

 

[New Birth]

I'm suggesting something different. Jesus had only one nature and one will - both human. What made Jesus special was learning over time that God's desires are the best possible and eventually making his own desires perfectly synchronized to God's desires.

My hypothesis is that a spirit is simply a will or a desire. Anybody can theoretically be God by similarly synchronizing to God's desires.

There are so many things wrong about the posts on this topic.
The two most dangerous thoughts are...
1. The thought that Jesus was only a man who became God when his "will" aligned with God's "will".
2. The thought that "anybody can theoretically be God by similarly synchronizing to God's desires".

As to the first, the bible itself teaches that Jesus was in fact and specifically God manifest in the flesh. Not a man that became God by obedience.

As to the second I believe by definition alone Man cannot become God.

 

[Robban]

There are so many things wrong about the posts on this topic.
The two most dangerous thoughts are...
1. The thought that Jesus was only a man who became God when his "will" aligned with God's "will".
2. The thought that "anybody can theoretically be God by similarly synchronizing to God's desires".

As to the first, the bible itself teaches that Jesus was in fact and specifically God manifest in the flesh. Not a man that became God by obedience.

As to the second I believe by definition alone Man cannot become God.

Have a question,
Why does it say in Acts 1:10,

".........this Jesus......."?

Just curious because I noticed it while reading how he was taken up.

 

[New Birth]

Have a question,
Why does it say in Acts 1:10,

".........this Jesus......."?

Just curious because I noticed it while reading how he was taken up.

Right so in Acts 1:11 ....this same Jesus...
I believe it was simply a "hey guys snap out of it" moment this same Jesus, this same Messiah, this same glorified man/savior, this same Jesus you know as the Christ will return in like manner.
Although I do believe there is the question of "who is Jesus" yet I dont think the disciples at this point had that question.

 

[Robban]

Right so in Acts 1:11 ....this same Jesus...
I believe it was simply a "hey guys snap out of it" moment this same Jesus, this same Messiah, this same glorified man/savior, this same Jesus you know as the Christ will return in like manner.
Although I do believe there is the question of "who is Jesus" yet I dont think the disciples at this point had that question.

No, I got it wrong, it should have been 1:11,

It says "this Jesus" made me think first,
how many are there,
then I thought it must have been a common name,

Will it be the same one as they saw going up,

it describes it will be the same way coming back,

In a cloud, thinking here it can mean speed,
a cloud moves faster than a donkey.

But then I do not know.

 

[New Birth]

No, I got it wrong, it should have been 1:11,

It says "this Jesus" made me think first,
how many are there,
then I thought it must have been a common name,

Will it be the same one as they saw going up,

it describes it will be the same way coming back,

In a cloud, thinking here it can mean speed,
a cloud moves faster than a donkey.

But then I do not know.

Well the bible does say we will meet the Lord in the air. 1 Thess 4:17 and Rev 1:7 ...he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him...

Yes Jesus was a fairly common name.

 

[Robban]

Well the bible does say we will meet the Lord in the air. 1 Thess 4:17 and Rev 1:7 ...he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him...

Yes Jesus was a fairly common name.

Something remarkable (for me at least),
I looked Rev 1:7 and though I cannot remember when or why,
I had written "v 7,-- Zechariah 12:10

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks. I took your statement, "about fully God" to be related to the will.
So this is clearly not the teaching of scripture. So I'm assuming that you are making a case for a possible universe where this could happen.

It seems that qualities like omniscience -knowing all true claims and no false ones is not something that is a function of obedience to God's will.

It seems that omnipresence, omnipotence, aseity, eternality, moral perfection, being all-loving, all-just, things thought to be necessary to divinity, would not possibly be a function of obedience.

We could become able to operate in a fashion consistent with God's initial design. But divinity seems to be so completely different ontologically as to eliminate any possible theosis for occurring without significant equivocation of the term and elimination of the majority of attribute of God as necessary.

Assume that spirit equals will. God is spirit (from somewhere in the Bible), so God is will. If two wills become identical then two spirits become identical. This is how Jesus could claim to be identical to God. God as a will has no location. Wherever people want the same things as God the will of God exists, and God is nothing but will.

The beauty of this idea is that Jesus was still merely a human. Any human can share the will of God, but Jesus was the trailblazer.

 

[cloudyday2]

There are so many things wrong about the posts on this topic.
The two most dangerous thoughts are...
1. The thought that Jesus was only a man who became God when his "will" aligned with God's "will".
2. The thought that "anybody can theoretically be God by similarly synchronizing to God's desires".

As to the first, the bible itself teaches that Jesus was in fact and specifically God manifest in the flesh. Not a man that became God by obedience.

As to the second I believe by definition alone Man cannot become God.

It is actually Orthodox Christian teaching ( Theosis (Eastern Christian theology) - Wikipedia )

What I am proposing is a little bit different from Orthodox Christian beliefs of course. But there are some similarities.

 

[Robban]

.