Replies to post #7206 on CHARTS_CCI_SYSTEM

[TREND1]

mcd
I was taught by the nuns that Jesus was human in every way.
Why else would God have sent him ?

[Nirvana]

mcd, not open mindedness but spirituality!

Each one of us on this planet has the "spirit/soul" of GOD! Yes, we need GOD's grace to AWAKEN it and then live in total sanctity!

The path espoused by Jesus/Buddha is not easy! It requires introspection/awareness within.

What is described as "Satan" in the Bible is known as "Maya or Illusion" in Asian principles. Our minds are constantly reaching out through our 5 senses to satisfy "wordly pleasure" that will never give us that "eternal bliss". It is the job of this Satan/Maya to distract us into this illusory world leading us to "Greed/Lust/Anger/Hatred etc." Once we shut our minds (consciously) and go deep within, we experience and awaken the Jesus within us!

Then we realize the true purpose of living which is to selflessly serve & love humanity without any material cravings or aversion!

The Pope, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama are living examples of such spirits!

[snootmagruder]

mcd, not all believe Jesus was "of" God such as the Jews believe he was a prophet. Christianity was split over a sort of this as well up until Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.
What exactly was the Council of Nicaea?

"The Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325, was a response to a crisis that developed in the church over the teachings of a presbyter, or priest, of the church in Alexandria. And his teachings suggested that Jesus was not fully divine, that Jesus was certainly a supernatural figure of some sort, but was not God in the fullest sense. His opponents included a fellow who came to be bishop of Alexandria, Anthanasius, and the folk on that side of the divide insisted that Jesus was fully divine. The Council of Nicea was called to try to mediate that dispute, and the Council did come down on the side of the full divinity of Jesus. It all boils down to one iota of difference. And the debates in the 4th century about the status of Jesus have to do with the Greek word that exemplifies the problem. One party said that Jesus was homo usias with the father, that is of the same being or substance as the father. The other party, the Arian party, argued that Jesus was homoi usias with the father, inserting a single letter "i" into that word. So the difference between being the same and being similar to was the heart of the debate over Arianism. And the Council of Nicea resolved that the proper teaching was that Jesus was of the same being as the father."

So the point is, if the council was wrong in their interpretation,
could Jesus have been more human and subject to human weakness?

[snootmagruder]

mcd, If in fact the council's interpretation was correct, then you would be correct to proclaim Jesus was above weakness or corruptibility as the following quote from Wiki:
"At the end of the creed came a list of anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians' stated claims.

1) The view that 'there was once that when he was not' was rejected to maintain the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.
2) The view that he was 'mutable or subject to change' was rejected to maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond any form of weakness or corruptibility, and most importantly that he could not fall away from absolute moral perfection.