This Christian Life

Sounds like a web-based-sci-fi version of the Gnostic understanding of Christ. It is a sweet thought to think, but it's also a slippery slope to be sure. Here's why. If we believe that Jesus was not fully a "he" (and by this we can subsequently suppose that he was not a human at all, right? but rather an "interface" as you call it?) then it throws off the entire salvation purpose. God--in Jesus--had to be fully a flesh and bone human AND fully the True Divine God all at once in order to satisfy the sins of the world. Medieval theologians especially focused on the justice of God in regards to this. They were, after all, concerned about feudal justice and serfs satisfying their lords' justice systems. With that paradigm, let's look at this concept: humans mess up (are sinful). God is just. A just God would therefore be required to punish those who mess up (are sinful). Thus, God's justice necessarily requires him to punish us. Keep thinking feudal system. BUT, humans should try to do something to satisfy the mess up (sin) and avoid the punishment. Yet, humans cannot by their nature as mere humans satisfy the Divine. It's like putting a dog in prison for a person's theivery. There's also no justice in that. SO, God's justice must be satisfied by a God--the God---enter Jesus. Jesus, in order to satisfy the requirements of humans and avoid their (justly earned) death, had to be human. He died for all humans. Coterminously, he had to be God in order to carry out the transaction with God. I hope that makes sense. But it isn't just a feudal understanding of justice that shaped this doctrine. It's all over scripture, like in Genesis 15.

I re-read your post and I think we're talking about the same thing. If I misunderstood you, lemmeknow. If not, I'm glad I could point out some of the theological history of your thoughts!

PS, by Jesus needing to be fully a "he" as I wrote in the first paragraph, I don't at all mean that he had to be male gendered. Just that he had to be a real human, not any sort of interface.

When I read this post I got the impression Paul was suggesting that G-d is not fully a "he" (seems pretty straight forward) while the rest of the post fully embraced Jesus as "he". In fact I think Paul's idea necessitates Jesus being fully "he". I say this because for G-d to design a "good interface" it had to be as much like us (even to the point of being one of us) as possible.

I think Paul's idea is very interesting (and actually very non-gnostic). I also think we could take it a bit further. As I look around me at the world I see that trees, stones, birds, and most especially his people are reflecting and allowing interaction with a G-d to which they are the 'interface'. In fact I think there is scripture to back this idea up.

In Matthew 25:45 Jesus tells the story of the Sheep and the Goats in which he reminds us that, "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Jesus as interface to G-d is a very interesting idea to me but somehow it still seems a bit abstract (probably the whole 2000 years ago thing) but the idea of each and every person being created in the image of G-d and containing mysteriously the ability to be a conduit directly to Hashem is not only frightening but inspiring.

hey, how's Spain?

perhaps i don't understand the meaning of interface. i thought it implied more of a representation of reality than a reality itself. with this understanding, jesus' full humanity and full divinity would only be represented in the interface. but i just looked up the word and the definition doesn't imply representative truth. so in this sense, jesus would in fact be an interface for God, although i think the analogy is still weak because if he was fully God he wouldn't need an interface. that would imply some of his divinity--or some of his humanity--would be compromised in the process of interfacing. he is fully both, and needs to be for reasons explained above. in other words, he can't be as much like us (even to the point of being one of us) as possible, he has to instead be actually whole-heartedly 100% one of us AND actually whole-heartedly 100% God. the end result for humans is that we get an interface for God, but his real existence doesn't act as an interface any more than you or i act as an interface for nathan or samuel; a job more fitting for nathanhart.org and samuel.bowles.es.

interface: A point at which independent systems or diverse groups interact.

GREAT discussion, guys. i've learned a lot from both of your posts.

when i read your first post, nate, i could tell you didn't get the interface idea. but i'm glad samuel chimed in. however, i think you provide a valid perspective with the whole idea that jesus is fully God and fully human at the same time. i've never really /fully/ understood this notion, but i guess that speaks exactly to the point i'm trying to make in the first place. God is way bigger than i could EVER imagine and needed a way for us to be able to understand him and his kingdom better. that's where i see Jesus stepping in as an interface to an entity (God) that is way, way over our heads. as samuel pointed out:

In fact I think Paul's idea necessitates Jesus being fully "he". I say this because for G-d to design a "good interface" it had to be as much like us (even to the point of being one of us) as possible.

and this is right in line with my thinking. God, being something or someone or somehow bigger and more complex than we'll ever know, has formed a very tangible, comprehendible, common "analogy" (another word for interface) so that we may have some small peek into the kingdom (even that word is part of the analogy) to God.

soooo, i think that Jesus CAN be fully human and fully God and still be an interface in the way i'm thinking.

very intriguing stuff.

Yeah, I'm with Paul and Samuel and Nathan's just not a big enough geek to get it. :) If I say Jesus is simply a layer of abstraction that is human readable Nathan would probably think ill of that as well.

Jesus is simply a layer of abstraction that is human readable

john...huh? if being a "big enough geek to get it" means using a sentence like that i'll pass :)

it's nice to see you still read this site. i thought of you last sunday when i preached at a church in shelby. it was a room full of john heemstras and paul harts. kinda kewl. the musicians were incredible. they did a rich mullins song better than rich m--wait, that's like blasphemy. sorry St. Rich. ;)

Nathan... God is a low level machine language and very difficult to interface with directly. Jesus provides a layer of abstraction in _understanding_ that langauge, but the Spirit is required to actually interface with God. Jesus understands both the God interface and the human interface but the Spirit communicates for us when we don't even know the ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) we're dealing with.

But what I really want to know is... is God a software engineer? Where does determinism stop and free will start? Or is it just a matter of understanding why anything should be, rather than not... and not that it is or isn't?

-John - waiting for Life 2.0

i must say this is probably my most interesting thread to date on this site! it is in line with what i do from day to day being an information architect.

john's comments make me smile at their creativity! however, it's /just/ enough over my head that i can't speak directly to it. and, i'm wondering if my usage of "interface" is consistent with yours, john...

when i refer to interface, i refer to the medium by which a human interacts with another entity, whether that be another human, a machine, or God. for instance, the interface to your refrigerator is the handle; the interface to your computer is your mouse and your keyboard; the interface to your friend is eye contact and verbal communication; the interface to your understanding of God is Jesus.

i may use "interface" more loosely than others, but that is how i understand it.

I'm pretty much using interface the same way you are, Paul. An additional term I really wanted to toss in there was API (Application Programming Interface) but didn't want bring in the determinism that "programming" brings with it. However, there it's at least somewhat analogous in that with an API you can write functional software (a strong Christian walk) without really understanding what's going under the hood (God's reality that we really don't have a clue about) so long as the API (Bible) is sufficiently explanatory.

Speaking of programming determinism, does life have dead code? Hmm... Related: I really enjoyed the part in the Matrix where The Oracle talks about the program for the birds, the program for the wind, etc. It's trivial, but I had never really thought of it like that (not that I think it's accurate or not, it's just fun to think about).

Thus ends your daily dose of Geek Theology.

john, you gotta see the Animatrix movies. paul, do you know what one i'm talking about? the one that john's "dead code" reference reminded me of? sweeet.

Nathan - I own the Animatrix DVD. What are you referring to?

i just read every single word of everybody's entries and i admit i don't comprehend, on any level, what the hey you all are talkin' about!

i'll just say i agree with nate because i like him!

A very interesting line of thought and I'm sorry I'm getting in on the conversation so late. I think an interface is a great analogy. Just like when you interface with your refrigerator through the door handle, we interface with God through Jesus. And just like for a genuine me-fridge interface to be any good at all, the handle has to have a solid connection to the fridge and to me, so Jesus is fully God and fully man. But we need to be carefull with analogies too. If stretched too far they break down. They can illustrate and teach, but we can't let them become a source from which we derive truth. If we decide that the interface is a good analogy it still may not be able to enlighten us about determinism or other issues.