Leaving Jesus of Nazareth in His Place and Time

[trickster]

In a posting elsewhere I have been critisized as an Arianist, so I want to restate what I said and see how it resonates.

By indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was “fully human” that means he was also limited in his human form. That assumes that he operated within a given time, place and space in first century Israel. He operated within a socio-cultural context that was very patriarchial in its orientation and hence he chose men to be his followers and apostles…the church has since then argued that this meant an all male priesthood, etc.

Jesus had a pre-existence, a human existence and a cosmic or his existence as “the Christ”. The three states were eternal they had no beginning nor end, yet they had specific time frames…or at the very minimum the 30 or so years on earth was a specific time frame.

The basic thought, question or reflection that I have is this; could it be that we need to leave Jesus of Nazareth in his time and place (not to ignore or disregard) but to understand the selection of men as simply an act reflective of the time, space and socio-cultural context in which Jesus operated? If this is so, then does that mean Jesus as Christ would necessarily be bound to that socio-cultural context?"

The “Beautific Vision” and the nature of his “fullness” as God are the two components that were used to say that the Jesus in human form could see the future and “knew that there would be feminists”, etc. and that Jesus in Christ form would not be contradictory - which makes sense to me - but it doesn’t mean that Jesus Christ would be limited to the socio-cultural context of first century Israel…

Also, Jesus of Nazareth, even with a Beautific Vision, how could he know the future when the future is dependent upon humanity’s decisions, their conscience or their choice not to obey God’s will…the best thing that the beautific vision could of offered Jesus was a “best case scenario”…or a scenario contingent upon human choices throughout the centrury…

Thoughts.

Bruce

 

[davidv]

I seems to me that you conclusions are based on a false premise and are not valid.

You stated

By indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was “fully human” that means he was also limited in his human form.

Jesus is a Divine person, who has a human nature and a Divine nature. He cannot be limited in His human form. This is proven in His command over nature, demons and even death while was on earth.

 

[Gorgias]

By indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was “fully human” that means he was also limited in his human form.

Bruce,

You can argue this, but you need to be able to show that his “human form” had no notion of his divinity, don’t you? That is, if Jesus is ‘fully limited’, you’re saying that his divine nature had absolutely no interaction with his human nature, aren’t you?

He operated within a socio-cultural context that was very patriarchial in its orientation and hence he chose men to be his followers and apostles…the church has since then argued that this meant an all male priesthood, etc.

The basic thought, question or reflection that I have is this; could it be that we need to leave Jesus of Nazareth in his time and place (not to ignore or disregard) but to understand the selection of men as simply an act reflective of the time, space and socio-cultural context in which Jesus operated? If this is so, then does that mean Jesus as Christ would necessarily be bound to that socio-cultural context?

However, that socio-cultural context required men not to speak in public with women who they weren’t related to – and yet, Jesus talked to the Syro-Phoenician woman at the well? That context also required Jesus to maintain physical separation from lepers – but he physically touched them and healed them. The context demanded that Jesus refrain from table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors… yet Scripture is replete with examples where Jesus constantly did this. How can you assert that the socio-cultural context was determinate of Jesus’ actions?

Jesus had a pre-existence, a human existence and a cosmic or his existence as “the Christ”. The three states were eternal they had no beginning nor end, yet they had specific time frames…or at the very minimum the 30 or so years on earth was a specific time frame.

Three? And they are all eternal – without beginning or end? I’m not sure you can argue that. Jesus, the incarnate son of God, came into being at his conception. “The Christ” is a term that speaks to this incarnate reality. If you wanted to say “Logos” and “Jesus” or “Logos” and “Christ”, then I’d be with you… but three?

 

[Qoeleth]

It seems to me to be a very unsound idea. The real Jesus, the Jesus whose word we follow, was none other than the Jesus of Nazareth. Personally, I refuse to use the term ‘historical Jesus’ because it implies a dichotomy between Jesus of Nazareth, the 1st Century Rabbi, and the ‘true Jesus’.

The idea of pre-existence and ‘cosmic’ Christ are poetic metaphors, and valid as such, but not otherwise. The describe the expression of the universal human condition embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.

What you are proposing is what a lot of Protestants already do- the talk about Christ as some kind of mythological Saviour, but forget about Jesus of Nazareth, the philosopher, the moral teacher, the man of sorrows. They become uncomfortable with the Beautitudes and the Woes, the Sermon on the Mount, the Law of the Gospel of poverty, compassion, etc.

Christianity must never forget Jesus, must not even think about moving away or beyond Jesus of Nazareth, the human Son of Mary, true God and true Man. On the contrary, we must always return to Jesus. Rather than “leaving Jesus of Nazareth in His time and place”, we need a new fidelity to Him.

 

[johnnyjones]

Bruce,

You can

Three? And they are all eternal – without beginning or end? I’m not sure you can argue that. Jesus, the incarnate son of God, came into being at his conception. “The Christ” is a term that speaks to this incarnate reality. If you wanted to say “Logos” and “Jesus” or “Logos” and “Christ”, then I’d be with you… but three?

You can see in one of Gods most important substances water that the trinity is viable. Water can be solid, liquid or vapor, yet it is still water. It just presents itself differently. The trinity is a biblical concept. (John 8:58) Jesus said to the Jews, “before Abraham was I AM”, same Greek words “I AM” that God said to Moses. He is God. (Acts 5:1) Annanais and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and were told, “you have not lied to men but to God.” Holy Spirit is God. (Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth). Self explainitory.

 

[Gorgias]

You can see in one of Gods most important substances water that the trinity is viable. Water can be solid, liquid or vapor, yet it is still water. It just presents itself differently. The trinity is a biblical concept. (John 8:58) Jesus said to the Jews, “before Abraham was I AM”, same Greek words “I AM” that God said to Moses. He is God. (Acts 5:1) Annanais and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and were told, “you have not lied to men but to God.” Holy Spirit is God. (Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth). Self explainitory.

Johnny,

Hmm… I’m not sure I see your point. Yes, things that come in threes exist in nature, and threes also exist in the Bible. However, Bruce was attempting to convince us that Jesus himself is a trinity of sorts – a “pre-existence”, contrasted against a “human existence” and a “cosmic existence” that he characterizes as “Christ”. That’s problematic on a number of levels, not the least of which is that he calls all three of these “without beginning or end”.

I think that pointing out that water can exist in three states doesn’t do much for Bruce’s assertions here…

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

In a posting elsewhere I have been critisized as an Arianist, so I want to restate what I He operated within a socio-cultural context that was very patriarchial in its orientation and hence he chose men to be his followers and apostles…the church has since then argued that this meant an all male priesthood, etc.

Jesus had no problem doing and saying what He wanted to do or say despite the socio-cultural conditions of the day. We have clear examples of this over and over in the New Testament. For example:

"Then that Samaritan woman saith to him: How dost thou, being a Jew, ask of me to drink, who am a Samaritan woman? For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans." John 4:9
or:
And they asked him, saying: Master, we know that thou speakest and teachest rightly: and thou dost not respect any person, but teachest the way of God in truth. --Luke 20:21

So if Jesus wanted to choose women as apostles He certainly would have done it.

As for women priests, understand that this is impossible just as it is impossible for men to be mothers or women to be fathers. The problem today is that ignorance, blinding pride and selfish desires drives people to demand things that go against nature itself.

There’s a reason why priests are called “father” The problem with most people demanding women priests is that they do not bother to study why it is that it is impossible for the Church to ordain women priests.

As for God knowing the future, God is outside of time and sees the past, present and future as an “eternal now”----knowing the actions of man’s free choices and every possible cause and effect of the combination of choices. i.e., He already knows if you will be saved or lost—but the choice was (is) completely yours.

As for Jesus being God, understand that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity—the Word of God who took flesh and dwelt among us. The word “Christ” simply means “Messiah” or “anointed One”. A basic understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity can be understood with an analogy which you can relate to:

You have a mind. You can think** thoughts**. You can think the word “Run”, you can **speak the word **“Run”, and you can actually act out your thought and word. Three distinct realities—yet one and the same.

The words “Father, “Son” and Holy Spirit” are merely human words to describe a reality about God beyond our finite comprehension. God is called “Father” because the principle of generation is fatherhood. The Father is the Eternal Thought, who begot an Eternal Word. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and the Son. Jesus is the Word:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . and the word became flesh and dwelt among us John1:1…

 

[trickster]

I seems to me that you conclusions are based on a false premise and are not valid.

You stated
Jesus is a Divine person, who has a human nature and a Divine nature. He cannot be limited in His human form. This is proven in His command over nature, demons and even death while was on earth.

The references to nature, demons and death cannot be limited to Jesus as he himself said that his apostles and disciples could do much more in the way of miracles. Perhaps it is our understanding of a limited human nature that needs to be re-examined. An ability to do miracles is not necessarily an expression of “fully God” …

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Bruce,

You can argue this, but you need to be able to show that his “human form” had no notion of his divinity, don’t you? That is, if Jesus is ‘fully limited’, you’re saying that his divine nature had absolutely no interaction with his human nature, aren’t you?

Agreed. How Jesus can be fully human and fully divine is a mystery to me in the sense of what nature belongs to what nature…I prefer to believe it is one nature. I am not sure if he had a sense of his own diviinity or beautific vision so … if he did have a vision of his fullness, why was he sweating blood, why did he feel abandoned, etc. I am not saying though that he had no sense of his divine nature and I am sure it did interact…what that means I don’t know…but I don’t make the connection that the male priesthood is based on a human Jesus who knew things for all times and intended a male only priesthood…that is kind of where this conversation came out of.

However, that socio-cultural context required men not to speak in public with women who they weren’t related to – and yet, Jesus talked to the Syro-Phoenician woman at the well? That context also required Jesus to maintain physical separation from lepers – but he physically touched them and healed them. The context demanded that Jesus refrain from table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors… yet Scripture is replete with examples where Jesus constantly did this. How can you assert that the socio-cultural context was determinate of Jesus’ actions?

Good points. Does the fact that Jesus was counter-culture not limit him to creating a statement about his culture…that would be an equally valid arguement. I can’t answer without some research and thinking but certainly your examples would suggest that Jesus was not limited to his time and place…but I think that you are llimited to your time and place and expressed as expressed in a counter cultural reaction…many groups reacted to this or that aspect of their cutlure and again that counter-reaction was one that was in conversation and limited to that time and place…that is a rather weak response to your excellent points…but it is a first response…your questions require a bit more research on mypart…

Three? And they are all eternal – without beginning or end? I’m not sure you can argue that. Jesus, the incarnate son of God, came into being at his conception. “The Christ” is a term that speaks to this incarnate reality. If you wanted to say “Logos” and “Jesus” or “Logos” and “Christ”, then I’d be with you… but three?

No, all three aspects of Jesus (Logos, Nazarene and Christ) have always existed - no beginning no end - that is basic Catholic teaching…what I was trying to get at was the particular essence or nature of Jesus of Nazareth as limited without being divorced from the fullness of who he is…I know that many theologians study and argue these points…but I think in terms of your third point I am in total agreement with you.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

It seems to me to be a very unsound idea. The real Jesus, the Jesus whose word we follow, was none other than the Jesus of Nazareth. Personally, I refuse to use the term ‘historical Jesus’ because it implies a dichotomy between Jesus of Nazareth, the 1st Century Rabbi, and the ‘true Jesus’.

The idea of pre-existence and ‘cosmic’ Christ are poetic metaphors, and valid as such, but not otherwise. The describe the expression of the universal human condition embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.

What you are proposing is what a lot of Protestants already do- the talk about Christ as some kind of mythological Saviour, but forget about Jesus of Nazareth, the philosopher, the moral teacher, the man of sorrows. They become uncomfortable with the Beautitudes and the Woes, the Sermon on the Mount, the Law of the Gospel of poverty, compassion, etc.

Christianity must never forget Jesus, must not even think about moving away or beyond Jesus of Nazareth, the human Son of Mary, true God and true Man. On the contrary, we must always return to Jesus. Rather than “leaving Jesus of Nazareth in His time and place”, we need a new fidelity to Him.

If I understand you then I agree with you. I did not mean leave Jesus of Nazareth behind…he in fact showed us how to be human, your right. Jesus of Nazareth also died on the cross and that was in redemption for our fallen nature…his after death fullness is the Christ or King…I believe Jesus operated within a given place and time and we ought to interpret and understand our Catholicism from this aspect of the limits of the Nazarene…if that clarifies things…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

You can see in one of Gods most important substances water that the trinity is viable. Water can be solid, liquid or vapor, yet it is still water. It just presents itself differently. The trinity is a biblical concept. (John 8:58) Jesus said to the Jews, “before Abraham was I AM”, same Greek words “I AM” that God said to Moses. He is God. (Acts 5:1) Annanais and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and were told, “you have not lied to men but to God.” Holy Spirit is God. (Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth). Self explainitory.

Total agreement. Solids, liquids and vapour have different essences too. All I am saying is that human nature must - by the nature of being human - have some limits, so the Nazarene could of had limits…so to assume that all his acts were informed by an eternal knowledge…I don’t know…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Johnny,

Hmm… I’m not sure I see your point. Yes, things that come in threes exist in nature, and threes also exist in the Bible. However, Bruce was attempting to convince us that Jesus himself is a trinity of sorts – a “pre-existence”, contrasted against a “human existence” and a “cosmic existence” that he characterizes as “Christ”. That’s problematic on a number of levels, not the least of which is that he calls all three of these “without beginning or end”.

I think that pointing out that water can exist in three states doesn’t do much for Bruce’s assertions here…

Gorgias…I am not trhying to convince anyone of anything…I learned this stuff in a Catholic Theology Class! Jesus himself is understood by theologians in his pre-birth, life time and after life forms, names, titles, etc…I can dig up the references for you…Jesus is still one member of the Trinity, but the second person in the Trinity has had three forms as his part of the dynamics of Our God…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Jesus had no problem doing and saying what He wanted to do or say despite the socio-cultural conditions of the day. We have clear examples of this over and over in the New Testament. For example:

"Then that Samaritan woman saith to him: How dost thou, being a Jew, ask of me to drink, who am a Samaritan woman? For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans." John 4:9
or:
And they asked him, saying: Master, we know that thou speakest and teachest rightly: and thou dost not respect any person, but teachest the way of God in truth. --Luke 20:21

So if Jesus wanted to choose women as apostles He certainly would have done it.

As for women priests, understand that this is impossible just as it is impossible for men to be mothers or women to be fathers. The problem today is that ignorance, blinding pride and selfish desires drives people to demand things that go against nature itself.

There’s a reason why priests are called “father” The problem with most people demanding women priests is that they do not bother to study why it is that it is impossible for the Church to ordain women priests.

As for God knowing the future, God is outside of time and sees the past, present and future as an “eternal now”----knowing the actions of man’s free choices and every possible cause and effect of the combination of choices. i.e., He already knows if you will be saved or lost—but the choice was (is) completely yours.

As for Jesus being God, understand that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity—the Word of God who took flesh and dwelt among us. The word “Christ” simply means “Messiah” or “anointed One”. A basic understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity can be understood with an analogy which you can relate to:

You have a mind. You can think** thoughts**. You can think the word “Run”, you can **speak the word **“Run”, and you can actually act out your thought and word. Three distinct realities—yet one and the same.

The words “Father, “Son” and Holy Spirit” are merely human words to describe a reality about God beyond our finite comprehension. God is called “Father” because the principle of generation is fatherhood. The Father is the Eternal Thought, who begot an Eternal Word. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and the Son. Jesus is the Word:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . and the word became flesh and dwelt among us John1:1…

Gabriel…I don’t think your getting my point. Jesus of Nazareth must have been limited to his time and place due to his human nature. I know that the beatific vision allows us to fantasize that Jesus made decisions informed by a knowing of all times and places, but even if he did, he knew that the beatific vision was also dependent upon humanity’s free choice to follow and do God’s will… it is a comfortable arguement to justify a patriarchial church and priesthood. We ought to have open minds enough to say that it is equally valid that Jesus was simply choosing men cause that’s what they did in his time and place…are we limited to the cultural limits of Jesus’ time…or can we focus on what he chose the apostles for and ensure women do the same thing…other than Jesus choosing men for the priesthood what exists to say women could not be priests?

I understand the concepts of Logos, Christ, etc., and what I am saying about the nature of Jesus is not outside Catholic teaching as I noted to another thread respondent.
B
Bruce

 

[johnnyjones]

Total agreement. Solids, liquids and vapour have different essences too. All I am saying is that human nature must - by the nature of being human - have some limits, so the Nazarene could of had limits…so to assume that all his acts were informed by an eternal knowledge…I don’t know…

Bruce

Of course Jesus’ the man’ had limitations because he was fully human (and fully God). My impression was that you were having difficulty with the concept of the trinity. The point with the water analogy is that solid, liquid, vapor are one substance, manifesting themselves differently. Analogy’s with the trinity are always tricky but some Earthly reference’s can sometimes help. The egg is another one.

There were times Jesus acted as a man and other times acted as God. Sometimes Jesus called upon his divine nature. Example after example is presented in the scriptures.

 

[Gorgias]

No, all three aspects of Jesus (Logos, Nazarene and Christ) have always existed - no beginning no end - that is basic Catholic teaching…what I was trying to get at was the particular essence or nature of Jesus of Nazareth as limited without being divorced from the fullness of who he is.

Bruce,

You make the argument that, in his human nature, Jesus was limited; that much makes sense if you replace “nature” with “soul”. To make the argument that his human nature (although not mixed with or confused with his divine nature) had no contact with his divine nature is a whole 'nother thing, isn’t it? The fact that Jesus has a human soul, which is limited, is a different question.

You also seem to be saying that Jesus, the incarnate son of God, had no beginning. That does not make sense to me: as a human, Jesus definitely did have a beginning!

I think I would also assert that the term “Christ” applies more properly to “Jesus” than to the “Logos” (since we’re splitting hairs here!). Therefore, if you’re referring to the second person of the Trinity, then yeah, no beginning and no end. However, if you’re talking about the man who walked this earth and was proclaimed as “Messiah” (i.e., “Christ”) by his followers, then no, there definitely was a beginning there! (This is also why I’m having a hard time with your “three phases” concept – I would think that “Jesus” and “Christ” are synonymous.)

Maybe we’re talking around each other, or just using our terminology differently…?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

We ought to have open minds enough to say that it is equally valid that Jesus was simply choosing men cause that’s what they did in his time and place…

I showed you examples of how Jesus went directly against the way they did things in His time and place. So it is not equally valid to say that Jesus was choosing men out of social norms. “Master, we know that thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men.” Matt. 22:16 If Jesus wanted to appoint six men and six women to form the twelve apostles He would certainly have done so freely without concern for the way “people did things back then”. So your argument based on social norms of the day simply collapses with the evidence of Scripture.

can we focus on what he chose the apostles for and ensure women do the same thing…

You say: To ensure women do the same thing. Question: Why is it so important for you *to ensure that women do the same thing as men? * Especially since God made men and women with uniquely different gifts for roles which only men and only women can fulfill. A human person is both body and spirit thus a the person of man finds expression in a male body, and the person of woman finds expression in a female body. Only men can father children, and only women can bear a child within her and bring a new man into the world.

The problem is that the social norms and pressures of the world today fraught with political correctness contaminated with false ideas end up reducing the persons of man and woman to mere biological entities without regards to the fundamental purpose of man and woman, which is to serve God in the way God made us. Today, men want to be women and women want to be men.

As far as your open mindedness, be careful; the devil loves to fill open minds with false ideas. We have an intellect for truth, and a will for goodness and love. When the intellect is filled with false ideas hinging on fallible uninformed opinions it ends up driving a person to fight for the wrong ideas. Trust Jesus Christ and trust the teachings of His Church. If you cannot trust the Church, then you cannot trust Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Church. If you cannot trust the Church then you cannot trust the Bible, simply because the Bible itself does not tell you what books belong in the Bible—for this you have to trust the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
img715.imageshack.us/img715/421/listeningtochrist.jpg

 

[johnnyjones]

Jesus the MAN had a beginning. Prior to his birth he did not take on human flesh. Jesus as God had no beginning. Proverbs 30:4Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his SON? Tell me if you know! Proverbs is way before the New Testament.

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus the MAN had a beginning. Prior to his birth he did not take on human flesh. Jesus as God had no beginning.

Absolutely. So, let’s be precise about the way we use words: Logos or Word, as an expression of the Second Person of the Trinity – eternal. Jesus, as an expression of the incarnate son of God – had a beginning, but is eternal (analogously to all humans, who had beginnings and will exist eternally). Christ, I would argue, is synonymous with Jesus, since it identifies the role that Jesus filled as our Savior, beginning with His earthly ministry…

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

In a posting elsewhere I have been critisized as an Arianist, so I want to restate what I said and see how it resonates.

By indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was “fully human” that means he was also limited in his human form. That assumes that he operated within a given time, place and space in first century Israel. He operated within a socio-cultural context that was very patriarchial in its orientation and hence he chose men to be his followers and apostles…the church has since then argued that this meant an all male priesthood, etc.

Jesus had a pre-existence, a human existence and a cosmic or his existence as “the Christ”. The three states were eternal they had no beginning nor end, yet they had specific time frames…or at the very minimum the 30 or so years on earth was a specific time frame.

The basic thought, question or reflection that I have is this; could it be that we need to leave Jesus of Nazareth in his time and place (not to ignore or disregard) but to understand the selection of men as simply an act reflective of the time, space and socio-cultural context in which Jesus operated? If this is so, then does that mean Jesus as Christ would necessarily be bound to that socio-cultural context?"

The “Beautific Vision” and the nature of his “fullness” as God are the two components that were used to say that the Jesus in human form could see the future and “knew that there would be feminists”, etc. and that Jesus in Christ form would not be contradictory - which makes sense to me - but it doesn’t mean that Jesus Christ would be limited to the socio-cultural context of first century Israel…

Also, Jesus of Nazareth, even with a Beautific Vision, how could he know the future when the future is dependent upon humanity’s decisions, their conscience or their choice not to obey God’s will…the best thing that the beautific vision could of offered Jesus was a “best case scenario”…or a scenario contingent upon human choices throughout the centrury…

Thoughts.

Bruce

Jesus was limited to his human form. Everything that he received in Spirit was not his but from the Spirit. His words were not his own and neither were his miracles. The bible clearly establishes this. Jesus appeared in the flesh as a human being but he was chosen out of humanity. He really had no power but received power that worked through him. He was a vessel that was filled. It is by the Spirit that he is made divine and holy; and without the Spirit he is neither. The Spirit is for everyone and the Spirit is the Truth. The truth is made to dwell in the body and this is what is called Gnosis. Gnosis is when the knowledge of God (the truth) unites with the human body. It is the Spirit dwelling within the flesh. That is exactly what Jesus was, the Spirit dwelling within the flesh. Jesus wasn’t God dwelling within the flesh but the Truth dwelling within the flesh. The truth is greater than God, just as the Holy Spirit, who is the Truth, is greater than the Father. Jesus was the true human; as the true human is the being of truth. Jesus was limited to his human form/ the supernatural working through him.

The living Father is male in Spirit. That is why the priesthood is all males; so that the priesthood would resemble the Father in all aspects. A male priest is more likely to be male in spirit than a female is to become male in spirit. If a woman wants to become a Father then she must become like a male in spirit. She must resemble a male. But to go further she must make the male appear as if it is neither male nor female. The same thing with a male, he must appear as neither male nor female.

 

[johnnyjones]

Jesus was limited to his human form. Everything that he received in Spirit was not his but from the Spirit. His words were not his own and neither were his miracles. The bible clearly establishes this. Jesus appeared in the flesh as a human being but he was chosen out of humanity. He really had no power but received power that worked through him. He was a vessel that was filled. It is by the Spirit that he is made divine and holy; and without the Spirit he is neither. The Spirit is for everyone and the Spirit is the Truth. The truth is made to dwell in the body and this is what is called Gnosis. Gnosis is when the knowledge of God (the truth) unites with the human body. It is the Spirit dwelling within the flesh. That is exactly what Jesus was, the Spirit dwelling within the flesh. Jesus wasn’t God dwelling within the flesh but the Truth dwelling within the flesh. The truth is greater than God, just as the Holy Spirit, who is the Truth, is greater than the Father. Jesus was the true human; as the true human is the being of truth. Jesus was limited to his human form/ the supernatural working through him.

The living Father is male in Spirit. That is why the priesthood is all males; so that the priesthood would resemble the Father in all aspects. A male priest is more likely to be male in spirit than a female is to become male in spirit. If a woman wants to become a Father then she must become like a male in spirit. She must resemble a male. But to go further she must make the male appear as if it is neither male nor female. The same thing with a male, he must appear as neither male nor female.

Jesus WAS limited in his human form (physical pain, bowel movements etc.) but sometimes revealed his divine nature through his physical body. When he uttered words with his vocal chords (a human act) he made acts of God happen. He didn’t always say, “through God I make this happen.” John 18:6 - When he was arrested at the garden Jesus said, “I am he” then “they all drew back and fell to the ground”. His literal words bowled them over.

John 2:18 “Destroy this temple (temple of his body) and I will raise it up”. Not the father. Jesus in his human nature giving a command of a divine nature. He DID act from his own spirit. It was not always delegated to him. Col. 2:9 “in him (Jesus) DWELLS ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GOD-HEAD BODILY.” Jesus WAS God dwelling within the flesh. Your statement is incorrect. Having a duel nature allowed jesus to sometimes act as God and other times require Gods (seperate) power.