(September 3, 2012 at 9:24 pm)CaseyTheAthie Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Drich Wrote: Post #2.....

Are you just being a jerk-off or are you being seriously lost?

You explaination and subsequently my follow up would uncover the truth to your query. What do you have to lose? So again Could YOU please explain.

When I've asked you to answer questions for me which you have answered for others, you got all bitchy about it.

It's pretty obvious what OP is getting at. It isn't enough to believe that God acted in mysterious ways as God should be capable of doing. He had to be made flesh in the form of Jesus so that he could die on the cross to save mankind from their skepticism and enjoyment of sex. This demands that he is human and introduces the demand for physical proof he existed.

If this doesn't happen, then the entire basis for Christianity as we know it is null and irrelevant.

(September 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm)Ryantology Wrote: When I've asked you to answer questions for me which you have answered for others, you got all bitchy about it.

It's pretty obvious what OP is getting at. It isn't enough to believe that God acted in mysterious ways as God should be capable of doing. He had to be made flesh in the form of Jesus so that he could die on the cross to save mankind from their skepticism and enjoyment of sex. This demands that he is human and introduces the demand for physical proof he existed.

If this doesn't happen, then the entire basis for Christianity as we know it is null and irrelevant.

And it should not be too difficult to understand what it is I am saying either.

If you take away the record of any man who lived in that time, what 'proof' would their be for anyone?
For instance If you take away all that was written about Piolet or even Ceasar, then what proof would remain about any of these men?
EVERYTHING Hings on what History records. Even events or records of men who lived just a few hundred years ago like Washington. Meaning if you take away all that is written about a man then of course you can call into doubt the existance of a given indivisual...

Everything most definitely does not hinge on records. Records aren't good enough for you anyway. Hercules ring a bell? Im sorry, but attempting to establish the authority of a cults religious texts as history isn't going to make this case.

(September 3, 2012 at 11:41 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm)Ryantology Wrote: When I've asked you to answer questions for me which you have answered for others, you got all bitchy about it.

It's pretty obvious what OP is getting at. It isn't enough to believe that God acted in mysterious ways as God should be capable of doing. He had to be made flesh in the form of Jesus so that he could die on the cross to save mankind from their skepticism and enjoyment of sex. This demands that he is human and introduces the demand for physical proof he existed.

If this doesn't happen, then the entire basis for Christianity as we know it is null and irrelevant.

And it should not be too difficult to understand what it is I am saying either.

If you take away the record of any man who lived in that time, what 'proof' would their be for anyone?
For instance If you take away all that was written about Piolet or even Ceasar, then what proof would remain about any of these men?
EVERYTHING Hings on what History records. Even events or records of men who lived just a few hundred years ago like Washington. Meaning if you take away all that is written about a man then of course you can call into doubt the existance of a given indivisual...

No, you're dodging the issue here. Never did I remotely suggest anything related to wiping all evidence of Jesus away.

I'm specifically saying that if the evidence points to a spiritual messiah, then according to faith, you shouldn't care for one second. But you DO, which is what I'm getting at.

Why? Does a non-human messiah mean the inevitable for you, that the Christian cult is nothing special? That's what I suspect, and if my observations are correct then it means you do not have faith in God today either, but necessarily need evidence to keep you warm at night.

(September 3, 2012 at 8:54 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ...if in reality Jesus was only ever a spirit then that shouldn't bother you for a second. The fact is though, that it does, hence why we see theists defending the idea of a human Christ. This defence mechanism shouldn't be acting up if the believer had true faith and didn't hold on to evidence as the basis for their belief.

Hi Fallen,
Speaking only for myself, had I grown up without any exposure to Christianity, I can imagine being a very content neo-Platonist. It's very easy to contemplate unseen spiritual realms with cool detachment. But when the Divine appears to touch history, then it prompts me to consider how spiritual realities might interact with my everyday reality.

Truth be told, the story of Christ forces me to wrestle with problems I'd rather not. I find that it introduces more doubt, not less. Holding those forces in tension helps me to grapple with life on a deeper level than I would otherwise. Reflecting on the humanity of Christ forces me to think more clearly about what it means to be truly human.

BTW I think Drich has a point. We form ideas in response to our experiences. There would be no religion in the absence of some revelation.

---

(September 4, 2012 at 12:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm specifically saying that if the evidence points to a spiritual messiah, then according to faith, you shouldn't care for one second.

Okay! I get it now...you're wanting to know why Jesus couldn't have just stayed a spiritual being and not bothered with the whole mess. Because you think a Christian could still believe in purely spiritual Christ and that a human Jesus somehow cheapens the religious faith of the believer.Yes?

Wow! Chad! You're back.

(September 4, 2012 at 12:07 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 8:54 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ...if in reality Jesus was only ever a spirit then that shouldn't bother you for a second. The fact is though, that it does, hence why we see theists defending the idea of a human Christ. This defence mechanism shouldn't be acting up if the believer had true faith and didn't hold on to evidence as the basis for their belief.

Hi Fallen,
Speaking only for myself, had I grown up without any exposure to Christianity, I can imagine being a very content neo-Platonist. It's very easy to contemplate unseen spiritual realms with cool detachment. But when the Divine appears to touch history, then it prompts me to consider how spiritual realities might interact with my everyday reality.

So in other words..?

Quote:Truth be told, the story of Christ forces me to wrestle with problems I'd rather not. I find that it introduces more doubt, not less. Holding those forces in tension helps me to grapple with life on a deeper level than I would otherwise. Reflecting on the humanity of Christ forces me to think more clearly about what it means to be truly human.

I can see what sort of lessons one could get from thinking about a human Christ. But my question is essentially, what can be said about faith if we see Jesus as a spiritual being? Can the believer still hold on to that faith or is a non-human messiah too... errr.. tricky to put faith on?

Quote:BTW I think Drich has a point. We form ideas in response to our experiences. There would be no religion in the absence of some revelation.

He does have a point, but one that is addressing his own question instead of what I'm talking about.

---

ChadWooters Wrote:Okay! I get it now...you're wanting to know why Jesus couldn't have just stayed a spiritual being and not bothered with the whole mess. Yes?

Almost there. I'm wanting to know if, hypothetically, God never intended to visit us but instead wanted to give spiritual revelations of Christ Jesus, why this thought is so troubling? God being the god of reality means that the believer should be okay with whatever God's plan was from the beginning. But it confuses me why theists can't handle Jesus possibly being a spirit instead of human. It shouldn't change anything, but from what I observe, it damages faith.

(September 4, 2012 at 12:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: ...my question is essentially, what can be said about faith if we see Jesus as a spiritual being? Can the believer still hold on to that faith or is a non-human messiah too... errr.. tricky to put faith on.

Yeah well, unfortunately, a Swedenborg guy isn't the best person to answer that kind of question. In the New Church God is more human than we are, i.e. the source of our humanity. There couldn't be a non-human messiah.

Nice to see you back Chad!

(September 4, 2012 at 12:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: But it confuses me why theists can't handle Jesus possibly being a spirit instead of human. It shouldn't change anything, but from what I observe, it damages faith.

Or why anti-theistic atheists can't handle the possibility of humans having a spiritual aspect :-) ...

It's the victory over sin thing (Christ Victorious)...if Jesus could overcome the limits of his physical existence then he has the authority to guide us through the same process.