(no subject)
the more i think about it...
the more i take issue with the theology of Jesus Christ being a facet of God.
This isn't to say I believe Jesus is like any other man
There is a very key difference; and that is the virgin conception
I believe that in that Christ was conceived by the Holy spirit entering into Mary
that... that broke the lineage of the sin of man
Christ literally had a different father than everyone else.
We all come of the line of Adam
whereas Christ came from the line of God: the same untainted place that Adam came of:
the breath of God; rather than the loins of man.
I believe that Christ is still just a man
but that he is untainted by the sin nature that is spiritually/genetically passed on to all the line of Adam.
I believe Christ could have sinned, just as Adam could; but that he simply didn't have the propensity to*.
I believe that Christ could've fallen just as Adam did,
and thereby negate his purpose
but didn't, and that is what made his sacrifice meaningful
I believe he honestly did not want to experience the cross (his prayer in Gethsemane)
but he practiced obedience of the spirit rather than the desire of the flesh to avoid pain
I believe that is also key
I believe that his sacrifice would mean nothing unless he did have the power to stop it at any time.
I believe that Christ, due both to his innate nature (as forged by God's desire/purpose, ergo design), and his choices, is elevated to the status of savior.
I believe his lordship over us is his reward for his choices, but also the fulfillment of his purpose, as [(replacement?)] for Adam**
I believe Adam was as Christ was: made in the image of God; without sin
I do not believe it was God's desire that man fall and then be redeemed
I wonder if Christ wouldn't have been more tempted to fall, if he didn't have the knowledge of Adam's fall.
Adam was in void state: there was no other man before him, no paradigm of consequence...
*I believe it is only if he had the capability to sin, and didn't... that his sacrifice for all those that do has any significance.
** wonder if Christ is actually the only way we will ever be able to relate to God.
Throughout revelation... it is the figure of Christ that is glorified... God seems to be out of the picture.
I also wonder why the switch: in the beginning man just walked with God, in the garden
there was no overt worship
yet then we have the fall, then the redemption, and then the eternal glorification of Christ
its almost that even when redeemed, even when freed of the tainted flesh and given new bodies... we still need to overtly worship something outside of ourselves, to be fulfilled. Almost as if this was carried over consequence of the fall.
These are just thoughts that have been going around in my head, for a while
feel free to disagree, or what have you
but don't be surprised if i don't respond
this isn't to say I consider your stances inaccurate, it's just to say I've no reason for my beliefs other than my present perceptions of scripture. So argument would be pretty vain: I'd just be repeating my self.
I make no claim that I'm 'right'
It's just that these ideas make sense, if one forgets some of the presuppositions that 'Christianity' was come up with over the years, such as the trinity, the nature of it... and etc
Scholars of 'Christianity' like to fill in an awful lot of blanks with allegations of fact.
I'm about stripping some of that away, and adding up just what is actually there.
That's my stated purpose at any rate.
(x-posted in ljchristians: http://community.livejournal.com/ljchristians/1861849.html
the more i take issue with the theology of Jesus Christ being a facet of God.
This isn't to say I believe Jesus is like any other man
There is a very key difference; and that is the virgin conception
I believe that in that Christ was conceived by the Holy spirit entering into Mary
that... that broke the lineage of the sin of man
Christ literally had a different father than everyone else.
We all come of the line of Adam
whereas Christ came from the line of God: the same untainted place that Adam came of:
the breath of God; rather than the loins of man.
I believe that Christ is still just a man
but that he is untainted by the sin nature that is spiritually/genetically passed on to all the line of Adam.
I believe Christ could have sinned, just as Adam could; but that he simply didn't have the propensity to*.
I believe that Christ could've fallen just as Adam did,
and thereby negate his purpose
but didn't, and that is what made his sacrifice meaningful
I believe he honestly did not want to experience the cross (his prayer in Gethsemane)
but he practiced obedience of the spirit rather than the desire of the flesh to avoid pain
I believe that is also key
I believe that his sacrifice would mean nothing unless he did have the power to stop it at any time.
I believe that Christ, due both to his innate nature (as forged by God's desire/purpose, ergo design), and his choices, is elevated to the status of savior.
I believe his lordship over us is his reward for his choices, but also the fulfillment of his purpose, as [(replacement?)] for Adam**
I believe Adam was as Christ was: made in the image of God; without sin
I do not believe it was God's desire that man fall and then be redeemed
I wonder if Christ wouldn't have been more tempted to fall, if he didn't have the knowledge of Adam's fall.
Adam was in void state: there was no other man before him, no paradigm of consequence...
*I believe it is only if he had the capability to sin, and didn't... that his sacrifice for all those that do has any significance.
** wonder if Christ is actually the only way we will ever be able to relate to God.
Throughout revelation... it is the figure of Christ that is glorified... God seems to be out of the picture.
I also wonder why the switch: in the beginning man just walked with God, in the garden
there was no overt worship
yet then we have the fall, then the redemption, and then the eternal glorification of Christ
its almost that even when redeemed, even when freed of the tainted flesh and given new bodies... we still need to overtly worship something outside of ourselves, to be fulfilled. Almost as if this was carried over consequence of the fall.
These are just thoughts that have been going around in my head, for a while
feel free to disagree, or what have you
but don't be surprised if i don't respond
this isn't to say I consider your stances inaccurate, it's just to say I've no reason for my beliefs other than my present perceptions of scripture. So argument would be pretty vain: I'd just be repeating my self.
I make no claim that I'm 'right'
It's just that these ideas make sense, if one forgets some of the presuppositions that 'Christianity' was come up with over the years, such as the trinity, the nature of it... and etc
Scholars of 'Christianity' like to fill in an awful lot of blanks with allegations of fact.
I'm about stripping some of that away, and adding up just what is actually there.
That's my stated purpose at any rate.
(x-posted in ljchristians: http://community.livejournal.com/ljchristians/1861849.html