Kapitel 161		Paper 161
Videre Samtaler Med Rodan		Further Discussions with Rodan
161:0.1 (1783.1) SØNDAG den 25. september år 29 e.Kr. samledes apostlene og evangelisterne i Magadan. Efter en lang konference den aften med sine medarbejdere overraskede Jesus alle ved at annoncere, at han og de tolv apostle tidligt næste dag ville tage til Jerusalem for at deltage i løvhyttefesten. Han gav ordre til, at evangelisterne skulle besøge de troende i Galilæa, og at kvindekorpset for en tid skulle vende tilbage til Betsaida.		161:0.1 (1783.1) ON SUNDAY, September 25, a.d. 29, the apostles and the evangelists assembled at Magadan. After a long conference that evening with his associates, Jesus surprised all by announcing that early the next day he and the twelve apostles would start for Jerusalem to attend the feast of tabernacles. He directed that the evangelists visit the believers in Galilee, and that the women’s corps return for a while to Bethsaida.
161:0.2 (1783.2) Da tiden var inde til at rejse til Jerusalem, var Nathaniel og Thomas stadig midt i deres diskussioner med Rodan fra Alexandria, og de sikrede sig Mesterens tilladelse til at blive i Magadan i et par dage. Så mens Jesus og de ti var på vej til Jerusalem, var Nathaniel og Thomas engageret i en seriøs debat med Rodan. I ugen forinden, hvor Rodan havde udlagt sin filosofi, havde Thomas og Nathaniel skiftevis præsenteret evangeliet om riget for den græske filosof. Rodan opdagede, at han var blevet godt instrueret i Jesu lære af en af Johannes Døberens tidligere apostle, som havde været hans lærer i Alexandria.		161:0.2 (1783.2) When the hour came to leave for Jerusalem, Nathaniel and Thomas were still in the midst of their discussions with Rodan of Alexandria, and they secured the Master’s permission to remain at Magadan for a few days. And so, while Jesus and the ten were on their way to Jerusalem, Nathaniel and Thomas were engaged in earnest debate with Rodan. The week prior, in which Rodan had expounded his philosophy, Thomas and Nathaniel had alternated in presenting the gospel of the kingdom to the Greek philosopher. Rodan discovered that he had been well instructed in Jesus’ teachings by one of the former apostles of John the Baptist who had been his teacher at Alexandria.
1. Guds personlighed ^top		1. The Personality of God ^top
161:1.1 (1783.3) Der var én ting, som Rodan og de to apostle ikke var enige om, og det var Guds personlighed. Rodan accepterede uden videre alt, hvad der blev præsenteret for ham om Guds egenskaber, men han hævdede, at Faderen i himlen ikke er, ikke kan være, en person, sådan som mennesket opfatter personlighed. Mens apostlene havde svært ved at bevise, at Gud er en person, fandt Rodan det endnu sværere at bevise, at han ikke er en person.		161:1.1 (1783.3) There was one matter on which Rodan and the two apostles did not see alike, and that was the personality of God. Rodan readily accepted all that was presented to him regarding the attributes of God, but he contended that the Father in heaven is not, cannot be, a person as man conceives personality. While the apostles found themselves in difficulty trying to prove that God is a person, Rodan found it still more difficult to prove he is not a person.
161:1.2 (1783.4) Rodan hævdede, at personligheden består i den sameksisterende kendsgerning af fuld og gensidig kommunikation mellem ligeværdige væsener, væsener, der er i stand til sympatisk forståelse. Rodan sagde: “For at være en person må Gud have symboler for åndskommunikation, som ville gøre det muligt for ham at blive fuldt forstået af dem, der kommer i kontakt med ham. Men da Gud er uendelig og evig, skaberen af alle andre væsener, følger det, at hvad angår ligeværdige væsener, er Gud alene i universet. Der er ingen, der er ham lig; der er ingen, som han kan kommunikere med som en ligemand. Gud er måske nok kilden til al personlighed, men som sådan er han transcendent til personligheden, ligesom Skaberen er over og hinsides skabningen.”		161:1.2 (1783.4) Rodan contended that the fact of personality consists in the coexistent fact of full and mutual communication between beings of equality, beings who are capable of sympathetic understanding. Said Rodan: “In order to be a person, God must have symbols of spirit communication which would enable him to become fully understood by those who make contact with him. But since God is infinite and eternal, the Creator of all other beings, it follows that, as regards beings of equality, God is alone in the universe. There are none equal to him; there are none with whom he can communicate as an equal. God indeed may be the source of all personality, but as such he is transcendent to personality, even as the Creator is above and beyond the creature.”
161:1.3 (1783.5) Denne strid bekymrede Thomas og Nathaniel meget, og de havde bedt Jesus om at komme dem til undsætning, men Mesteren nægtede at gå ind i deres diskussioner. Han sagde dog til Thomas: “Det betyder ikke så meget, hvilken forestilling du har om Faderen, så længe du er åndeligt bekendt med idealet af hans uendelige og evige natur.”		161:1.3 (1783.5) This contention greatly troubled Thomas and Nathaniel, and they had asked Jesus to come to their rescue, but the Master refused to enter into their discussions. He did say to Thomas: “It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature.”
161:1.4 (1784.1) Thomas hævdede, at Gud kommunikerer med mennesket, og at Faderen derfor er en person, selv inden for Rodans definition. Det afviste grækeren med den begrundelse, at Gud ikke åbenbarer sig personligt; at han stadig er et mysterium. Så appellerede Nataniel til sin egen personlige erfaring med Gud, og det tillod Rodan, idet han bekræftede, at han for nylig havde haft lignende oplevelser, men disse oplevelser, hævdede han, beviste kun Guds virkelighed, ikke hans personlighed.		161:1.4 (1784.1) Thomas contended that God does communicate with man, and therefore that the Father is a person, even within the definition of Rodan. This the Greek rejected on the ground that God does not reveal himself personally; that he is still a mystery. Then Nathaniel appealed to his own personal experience with God, and that Rodan allowed, affirming that he had recently had similar experiences, but these experiences, he contended, proved only the reality of God, not his personality.
161:1.5 (1784.2) Mandag aften gav Thomas op. Men tirsdag aften havde Nataniel fået Rodan til at tro på Faderens personlighed, og han fik grækeren til at ændre mening ved hjælp af følgende ræsonnementer:		161:1.5 (1784.2) By Monday night Thomas gave up. But by Tuesday night Nathaniel had won Rodan to believe in the personality of the Father, and he effected this change in the Greek’s views by the following steps of reasoning:
161:1.6 (1784.3) 1. Faderen i Paradiset nyder godt af ligeværdig kommunikation med mindst to andre væsener, som er fuldt ud lig ham selv og fuldstændig som ham selv—den Evige Søn og den Uendelige Ånd. I lyset af læren om Treenigheden var grækeren tvunget til at indrømme den Universelle Faders mulighed for personlighed. (Det var de senere overvejelser af disse diskussioner, der førte til den udvidede opfattelse af Treenigheden i de tolv apostles sind. Naturligvis var det den generelle opfattelse, at Jesus var den evige Søn).		161:1.6 (1784.3) 1. The Father in Paradise does enjoy equality of communication with at least two other beings who are fully equal to himself and wholly like himself—the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit. In view of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Greek was compelled to concede the personality possibility of the Universal Father. (It was the later consideration of these discussions which led to the enlarged conception of the Trinity in the minds of the twelve apostles. Of course, it was the general belief that Jesus was the Eternal Son.)
161:1.7 (1784.4) 2. Eftersom Jesus var lig med Faderen, og eftersom denne Søn havde opnået at manifestere sin personlighed over for sine jordiske børn, udgjorde et sådant fænomen et bevis på det faktum og en demonstration af muligheden for, at alle tre guddomme besad personlighed, og det afgjorde for altid spørgsmålet om Guds evne til at kommunikere med mennesket og muligheden for, at mennesket kunne kommunikere med Gud.		161:1.7 (1784.4) 2. Since Jesus was equal with the Father, and since this Son had achieved the manifestation of personality to his earth children, such a phenomenon constituted proof of the fact, and demonstration of the possibility, of the possession of personality by all three of the Godheads and forever settled the question regarding the ability of God to communicate with man and the possibility of man’s communicating with God.
161:1.8 (1784.5) 3. At Jesus var i gensidig forening og perfekt kommunikation med mennesket; at Jesus var Guds Søn. At forholdet mellem Søn og Fader forudsætter lighed i kommunikationen og gensidighed i den sympatiske forståelse; at Jesus og Faderen var ét. At Jesus på én og samme tid opretholdt en forstående kommunikation med både Gud og mennesker, og at eftersom både Gud og mennesker forstod betydningen af symbolerne i Jesu kommunikation, besad både Gud og mennesker personlighedens egenskaber, for så vidt angår kravene til evnen til indbyrdes kommunikation. At Jesu personlighed demonstrerede Guds personlighed, mens den endegyldigt beviste Guds tilstedeværelse i mennesket. At to ting, der er relateret til den samme ting, er relateret til hinanden.		161:1.8 (1784.5) 3. That Jesus was on terms of mutual association and perfect communication with man; that Jesus was the Son of God. That the relation of Son and Father presupposes equality of communication and mutuality of sympathetic understanding; that Jesus and the Father were one. That Jesus maintained at one and the same time understanding communication with both God and man, and that, since both God and man comprehended the meaning of the symbols of Jesus’ communication, both God and man possessed the attributes of personality in so far as the requirements of the ability of intercommunication were concerned. That the personality of Jesus demonstrated the personality of God, while it proved conclusively the presence of God in man. That two things which are related to the same thing are related to each other.
161:1.9 (1784.6) 4. At personlighed repræsenterer menneskets højeste begreb om menneskelig virkelighed og guddommelige værdier; at Gud også repræsenterer menneskets højeste begreb om guddommelig virkelighed og uendelige værdier; at Gud derfor må være en guddommelig og uendelig personlighed, en personlighed i virkeligheden, selv om den uendeligt og evigt overskrider menneskets begreb og definition af personlighed, men ikke desto mindre altid og universelt en personlighed.		161:1.9 (1784.6) 4. That personality represents man’s highest concept of human reality and divine values; that God also represents man’s highest concept of divine reality and infinite values; therefore, that God must be a divine and infinite personality, a personality in reality although infinitely and eternally transcending man’s concept and definition of personality, but nevertheless always and universally a personality.
161:1.10 (1784.7) 5. At Gud må være en personlighed, eftersom han er skaberen af al personlighed og skæbnen for al personlighed. Rodan var blevet enormt påvirket af Jesu lære: “Derfor skal I være fuldkomne, ligesom jeres Fader i himlen er fuldkommen.”		161:1.10 (1784.7) 5. That God must be a personality since he is the Creator of all personality and the destiny of all personality. Rodan had been tremendously influenced by the teaching of Jesus, “Be you therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
161:1.11 (1784.8) Da Rodan hørte disse argumenter, sagde han: “Jeg er overbevist. Jeg vil bekende mig til Gud som en person, hvis du vil tillade mig at kvalificere min bekendelse af en sådan tro ved at tillægge betydningen af personlighed en gruppe udvidede værdier, såsom overmenneskelig, transcendent, suveræn, uendelig, evig, endelig og universel. Jeg er nu overbevist om, at selvom Gud må være uendeligt meget mere end en personlighed, så kan han ikke være mindre. Jeg er tilfreds med at afslutte diskussionen og acceptere Jesus som Faderens personlige åbenbaring og tilfredsstillelsen af alle utilfredsstillede faktorer i logik, fornuft og filosofi.”		161:1.11 (1784.8) When Rodan heard these arguments, he said: “I am convinced. I will confess God as a person if you will permit me to qualify my confession of such a belief by attaching to the meaning of personality a group of extended values, such as superhuman, transcendent, supreme, infinite, eternal, final, and universal. I am now convinced that, while God must be infinitely more than a personality, he cannot be anything less. I am satisfied to end the argument and to accept Jesus as the personal revelation of the Father and the satisfaction of all unsatisfied factors in logic, reason, and philosophy.”
2. Jesu guddommelige natur ^top		2. The Divine Nature of Jesus ^top
161:2.1 (1785.1) Eftersom Nataniel og Thomas så fuldt ud havde godkendt Rodans syn på evangeliet om riget, var der kun ét punkt tilbage at overveje, nemlig læren om Jesu guddommelige natur, en lære, der først for nylig var blevet offentliggjort. Nataniel og Thomas præsenterede i fællesskab deres syn på Mesterens guddommelige natur, og den følgende fortælling er en forkortet, omarrangeret og omformuleret præsentation af deres lære:		161:2.1 (1785.1) Since Nathaniel and Thomas had so fully approved Rodan’s views of the gospel of the kingdom, there remained only one more point to consider, the teaching dealing with the divine nature of Jesus, a doctrine only so recently publicly announced. Nathaniel and Thomas jointly presented their views of the divine nature of the Master, and the following narrative is a condensed, rearranged, and restated presentation of their teaching:
161:2.2 (1785.2) 1. Jesus har indrømmet sin guddommelighed, og vi tror på ham. Der er sket mange bemærkelsesværdige ting i forbindelse med hans tjeneste, som vi kun kan forstå, hvis vi tror på, at han både er Guds Søn og Menneskesønnen.		161:2.2 (1785.2) 1. Jesus has admitted his divinity, and we believe him. Many remarkable things have happened in connection with his ministry which we can understand only by believing that he is the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.
161:2.3 (1785.3) 2. Hans liv sammen med os eksemplificerer idealet for menneskeligt venskab; kun et guddommeligt væsen kan være en sådan menneskelig ven. Han er den mest uselviske person, vi nogensinde har kendt. Han er selv syndernes ven; han vover at elske sine fjender. Han er meget loyal over for os. Selvom han ikke tøver med at irettesætte os, er det tydeligt for alle, at han virkelig elsker os. Jo bedre du kender ham, jo mere vil du elske ham. Du vil blive charmeret af hans urokkelige hengivenhed. Gennem alle disse år, hvor vi ikke har forstået hans mission, har han været en trofast ven. Selvom han ikke bruger smiger, behandler han os alle med samme venlighed; han er altid øm og medfølende. Han har delt sit liv og alt andet med os. Vi er et lykkeligt fællesskab; vi deler alle ting i fællesskab. Vi tror ikke, at et simpelt menneske kan leve et så uskyldigt liv under så vanskelige omstændigheder.		161:2.3 (1785.3) 2. His life association with us exemplifies the ideal of human friendship; only a divine being could possibly be such a human friend. He is the most truly unselfish person we have ever known. He is the friend even of sinners; he dares to love his enemies. He is very loyal to us. While he does not hesitate to reprove us, it is plain to all that he truly loves us. The better you know him, the more you will love him. You will be charmed by his unswerving devotion. Through all these years of our failure to comprehend his mission, he has been a faithful friend. While he makes no use of flattery, he does treat us all with equal kindness; he is invariably tender and compassionate. He has shared his life and everything else with us. We are a happy community; we share all things in common. We do not believe that a mere human could live such a blameless life under such trying circumstances.
161:2.4 (1785.4) 3. Vi tror, at Jesus er guddommelig, fordi han aldrig gør noget forkert; han begår ingen fejl. Hans visdom er ekstraordinær, hans fromhed fantastisk. Han lever dag for dag i perfekt overensstemmelse med Faderens vilje. Han fortryder aldrig sine ugerninger, for han overtræder ingen af Faderens love. Han beder for os og med os, men han beder os aldrig om at bede for ham. Vi tror, at han er konsekvent syndfri. Vi tror ikke, at en, der kun er menneske, nogensinde har erklæret at leve et sådant liv. Han hævder at leve et perfekt liv, og det anerkender vi, at han gør. Vores fromhed udspringer af omvendelse, men hans fromhed udspringer af retfærdighed. Han bekender sig endda til at tilgive synder og helbrede sygdomme. Intet menneske ville med fornuft bekende sig til at tilgive synder; det er et guddommeligt privilegium. Og han har set ud til at være perfekt i sin retfærdighed lige siden vores første kontakt med ham. Vi vokser i nåde og i viden om sandheden, men vores Mester udviser modenhed i retfærdighed til at begynde med. Alle mennesker, gode som onde, genkender disse elementer af godhed i Jesus. Og alligevel er hans fromhed aldrig påtrængende eller prangende. Han er både ydmyg og frygtløs. Han synes at bifalde vores tro på hans guddommelighed. Enten er han, hvad han bekender sig til, eller også er han den største hykler og bedrager, verden nogensinde har kendt. Vi er overbeviste om, at han er præcis, hvad han påstår at være.		161:2.4 (1785.4) 3. We think Jesus is divine because he never does wrong; he makes no mistakes. His wisdom is extraordinary; his piety superb. He lives day by day in perfect accord with the Father’s will. He never repents of misdeeds because he transgresses none of the Father’s laws. He prays for us and with us, but he never asks us to pray for him. We believe that he is consistently sinless. We do not think that one who is only human ever professed to live such a life. He claims to live a perfect life, and we acknowledge that he does. Our piety springs from repentance, but his piety springs from righteousness. He even professes to forgive sins and does heal diseases. No mere man would sanely profess to forgive sin; that is a divine prerogative. And he has seemed to be thus perfect in his righteousness from the times of our first contact with him. We grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, but our Master exhibits maturity of righteousness to start with. All men, good and evil, recognize these elements of goodness in Jesus. And yet never is his piety obtrusive or ostentatious. He is both meek and fearless. He seems to approve of our belief in his divinity. He is either what he professes to be, or else he is the greatest hypocrite and fraud the world has ever known. We are persuaded that he is just what he claims to be.
161:2.5 (1785.5) 4. Det unikke ved hans karakter og perfektionen af hans følelsesmæssige kontrol overbeviser os om, at han er en kombination af menneskelighed og guddommelighed. Han reagerer ufejlbarligt på synet af menneskelig nød; lidelse undlader aldrig at appellere til ham. Hans medfølelse bevæges både af fysisk lidelse, mentale kvaler og åndelig sorg. Han er hurtig til at genkende og generøs til at anerkende tilstedeværelsen af tro eller enhver anden nåde i sine medmennesker. Han er så retfærdig og fair og på samme tid så barmhjertig og hensynsfuld. Han sørger over folks åndelige stædighed og glæder sig, når de indvilliger i at se sandhedens lys.		161:2.5 (1785.5) 4. The uniqueness of his character and the perfection of his emotional control convince us that he is a combination of humanity and divinity. He unfailingly responds to the spectacle of human need; suffering never fails to appeal to him. His compassion is moved alike by physical suffering, mental anguish, or spiritual sorrow. He is quick to recognize and generous to acknowledge the presence of faith or any other grace in his fellow men. He is so just and fair and at the same time so merciful and considerate. He grieves over the spiritual obstinacy of the people and rejoices when they consent to see the light of truth.
161:2.6 (1786.1) 5. Han synes at kende menneskers tanker og forstå deres hjerters længsler. Og han er altid medfølende over for vores bekymrede sjæle. Han synes at besidde alle vores menneskelige følelser, men de er storslået forherliget. Han elsker godhed og hader synd. Han besidder en overmenneskelig bevidsthed om Guddommens nærvær. Han beder som et menneske, men optræder som en Gud. Han synes at vide ting på forhånd; selv nu tør han tale om sin død som en mystisk henvisning til sin fremtidige herliggørelse. Selvom han er venlig, er han også modig og tapper. Han tøver aldrig med at gøre sin pligt.		161:2.6 (1786.1) 5. He seems to know the thoughts of men’s minds and to understand the longings of their hearts. And he is always sympathetic with our troubled spirits. He seems to possess all our human emotions, but they are magnificently glorified. He strongly loves goodness and equally hates sin. He possesses a superhuman consciousness of the presence of Deity. He prays like a man but performs like a God. He seems to foreknow things; he even now dares to speak about his death, some mystic reference to his future glorification. While he is kind, he is also brave and courageous. He never falters in doing his duty.
161:2.7 (1786.2) 6. Vi er konstant imponerede over fænomenet med hans overmenneskelige viden. Der går næsten ikke en dag, uden at der sker noget, der afslører, at Mesteren ved, hvad der foregår uden for hans umiddelbare nærhed. Han synes også at kende til sine medarbejderes tanker. Han har utvivlsomt forbindelse med himmelske personligheder; han lever utvivlsomt på et åndeligt plan langt over os andre. Alt synes at være åbent for hans unikke forståelse. Han stiller os spørgsmål for at lokke os frem, ikke for at få information.		161:2.7 (1786.2) 6. We are constantly impressed by the phenomenon of his superhuman knowledge. Hardly does a day pass but something transpires to disclose that the Master knows what is going on away from his immediate presence. He also seems to know about the thoughts of his associates. He undoubtedly has communion with celestial personalities; he unquestionably lives on a spiritual plane far above the rest of us. Everything seems to be open to his unique understanding. He asks us questions to draw us out, not to gain information.
161:2.8 (1786.3) 7. For nylig tøvede Mesteren ikke med at hævde sin overmenneskelighed. Fra den dag, vi blev ordineret som apostle, og helt frem til for nylig, har han aldrig benægtet, at han kom fra Faderen i det høje. Han taler med en guddommelig lærers autoritet. Mesteren tøver ikke med at tilbagevise nutidens religiøse lære og forkynde det nye evangelium med positiv autoritet. Han er selvsikker, positiv og autoritativ. Selv Johannes Døberen erklærede, da han hørte Jesus tale, at han var Guds Søn. Han synes at være så tilstrækkelig i sig selv. Han beder ikke om støtte fra folkemængden; han er ligeglad med menneskers meninger. Han er modig og alligevel så fri for stolthed.		161:2.8 (1786.3) 7. Recently the Master does not hesitate to assert his superhumanity. From the day of our ordination as apostles right on down to recent times, he has never denied that he came from the Father above. He speaks with the authority of a divine teacher. The Master does not hesitate to refute the religious teachings of today and to declare the new gospel with positive authority. He is assertive, positive, and authoritative. Even John the Baptist, when he heard Jesus speak, declared that he was the Son of God. He seems to be so sufficient within himself. He craves not the support of the multitude; he is indifferent to the opinions of men. He is brave and yet so free from pride.
161:2.9 (1786.4) 8. Han taler konstant om Gud som en evigt tilstedeværende partner i alt, hvad han gør. Han går rundt og gør godt, for Gud synes at være i ham. Han kommer med de mest forbløffende påstande om sig selv og sin mission på jorden, påstande, som ville være absurde, hvis han ikke var guddommelig. Han erklærede engang: “Før Abraham var, er jeg.” Han har definitivt påberåbt sig guddommelighed; han bekender sig til at være i partnerskab med Gud. Han udtømmer næsten sprogets muligheder i gentagelsen af sine påstande om intim tilknytning til den himmelske Fader. Han vover endda at hævde, at han og Faderen er ét. Han siger, at enhver, der har set ham, har set Faderen. Og han siger og gør alle disse fantastiske ting med sådan en barnlig naturlighed. Han hentyder til sin forbindelse med Faderen på samme måde, som han hentyder til sin forbindelse med os. Han synes at være så sikker på Gud og taler om disse relationer på en så nøgtern måde.		161:2.9 (1786.4) 8. He constantly talks about God as an ever-present associate in all that he does. He goes about doing good, for God seems to be in him. He makes the most astounding assertions about himself and his mission on earth, statements which would be absurd if he were not divine. He once declared, “Before Abraham was, I am.” He has definitely claimed divinity; he professes to be in partnership with God. He well-nigh exhausts the possibilities of language in the reiteration of his claims of intimate association with the heavenly Father. He even dares to assert that he and the Father are one. He says that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. And he says and does all these tremendous things with such childlike naturalness. He alludes to his association with the Father in the same manner that he refers to his association with us. He seems to be so sure about God and speaks of these relations in such a matter-of-fact way.
161:2.10 (1786.5) 9. I sit bønsliv ser han ud til at kommunikere direkte med sin Fader. Vi har kun hørt få af hans bønner, men disse få tyder på, at han taler med Gud, så at sige ansigt til ansigt. Han ser ud til at kende fremtiden såvel som fortiden. Han kunne simpelthen ikke være alt dette og gøre alle disse ekstraordinære ting, medmindre han var mere end et menneske. Vi ved, at han er menneske, det er vi sikre på, men vi er næsten lige så sikre på, at han også er guddommelig. Vi tror, at han er guddommelig. Vi er overbeviste om, at han er Menneskesønnen og Guds Søn.		161:2.10 (1786.5) 9. In his prayer life he appears to communicate directly with his Father. We have heard few of his prayers, but these few would indicate that he talks with God, as it were, face to face. He seems to know the future as well as the past. He simply could not be all of this and do all of these extraordinary things unless he were something more than human. We know he is human, we are sure of that, but we are almost equally sure that he is also divine. We believe that he is divine. We are convinced that he is the Son of Man and the Son of God.
161:2.11 (1787.1) Da Nathaniel og Thomas havde afsluttet deres konferencer med Rodan, skyndte de sig videre mod Jerusalem for at slutte sig til deres medapostle, og de ankom fredag i samme uge. Dette havde været en stor oplevelse i alle tre troendes liv, og de andre apostle lærte meget af Nathaniel og Thomas’ fortælling om disse oplevelser.		161:2.11 (1787.1) When Nathaniel and Thomas had concluded their conferences with Rodan, they hurried on toward Jerusalem to join their fellow apostles, arriving on Friday of that week. This had been a great experience in the lives of all three of these believers, and the other apostles learned much from the recounting of these experiences by Nathaniel and Thomas.
161:2.12 (1787.2) Rodan tog tilbage til Alexandria, hvor han længe underviste i sin filosofi i Megantas skole. Han blev en mægtig mand i de senere anliggender i himmeriget; han var en trofast troende til slutningen af sine jordiske dage og opgav sit liv i Grækenland sammen med andre, da forfølgelserne var på deres højeste.		161:2.12 (1787.2) Rodan made his way back to Alexandria, where he long taught his philosophy in the school of Meganta. He became a mighty man in the later affairs of the kingdom of heaven; he was a faithful believer to the end of his earth days, yielding up his life in Greece with others when the persecutions were at their height.
3. Jesu menneskelige og guddommelige natur ^top		3. Jesus’ Human and Divine Minds ^top
161:3.1 (1787.3) Bevidstheden om guddommelighed var en gradvis vækst i Jesu sind op til hans dåb. Efter at han blev fuldt bevidst om sin guddommelige natur, førmenneskelige eksistens og universets prærogativer, synes han at have haft evnen til på forskellig vis at begrænse sin menneskelige bevidsthed om sin guddommelighed. Det forekommer os, at det fra hans dåb til korsfæstelsen var helt valgfrit for Jesus, om han kun ville stole på det menneskelige sind, eller om han ville bruge både det menneskelige og det guddommelige sinds viden. Til tider så det ud til, at han kun benyttede sig af den information, der lå i det menneskelige intellekt. Ved andre lejligheder så han ud til at handle med en sådan fylde af viden og visdom, som kun kunne opnås ved at udnytte det overmenneskelige indhold i hans guddommelige bevidsthed.		161:3.1 (1787.3) Consciousness of divinity was a gradual growth in the mind of Jesus up to the occasion of his baptism. After he became fully self-conscious of his divine nature, prehuman existence, and universe prerogatives, he seems to have possessed the power of variously limiting his human consciousness of his divinity. It appears to us that from his baptism until the crucifixion it was entirely optional with Jesus whether to depend only on the human mind or to utilize the knowledge of both the human and the divine minds. At times he appeared to avail himself of only that information which was resident in the human intellect. On other occasions he appeared to act with such fullness of knowledge and wisdom as could be afforded only by the utilization of the superhuman content of his divine consciousness.
161:3.2 (1787.4) Vi kan kun forstå hans unikke præstationer ved at acceptere teorien om, at han efter forgodtbefindende kunne begrænse sin guddommelige bevidsthed. Vi er fuldt ud klar over, at han ofte holdt sin forudviden om begivenheder tilbage fra sine medarbejdere, og at han var klar over, hvordan de tænkte og planlagde. Vi forstår, at han ikke ønskede, at hans tilhængere skulle vide for meget om, at han var i stand til at gennemskue deres tanker og trænge ind i deres planer. Han ønskede ikke at gå for langt for at overskride konceptet om det menneskelige, som det var i hans apostles og disciples sind.		161:3.2 (1787.4) We can understand his unique performances only by accepting the theory that he could, at will, self-limit his divinity consciousness. We are fully cognizant that he frequently withheld from his associates his foreknowledge of events, and that he was aware of the nature of their thinking and planning. We understand that he did not wish his followers to know too fully that he was able to discern their thoughts and to penetrate their plans. He did not desire too far to transcend the concept of the human as it was held in the minds of his apostles and disciples.
161:3.3 (1787.5) Vi er helt ude af stand til at skelne mellem hans praksis med at begrænse sin guddommelige bevidsthed og hans teknik med at skjule sin forhåndsviden og tankeindsigt for sine menneskelige medarbejdere. Vi er overbeviste om, at han brugte begge disse teknikker, men vi er ikke altid i stand til i et givet tilfælde at specificere, hvilken metode han har brugt. Vi observerede ham ofte handle med kun det menneskelige bevidsthedsindhold; så kunne vi se ham i konference med lederne af universets himmelske hærskarer og skelne det guddommelige sinds utvivlsomme funktion. Og ved næsten utallige lejligheder var vi vidne til, hvordan denne kombinerede personlighed af menneske og Gud fungerede, da den blev aktiveret af den tilsyneladende perfekte forening af det menneskelige og det guddommelige sind. Dette er grænsen for vores viden om sådanne fænomener; vi kender faktisk ikke den fulde sandhed om dette mysterium.		161:3.3 (1787.5) We are utterly at a loss to differentiate between his practice of self-limiting his divine consciousness and his technique of concealing his preknowledge and thought discernment from his human associates. We are convinced that he used both of these techniques, but we are not always able, in a given instance, to specify which method he may have employed. We frequently observed him acting with only the human content of consciousness; then would we behold him in conference with the directors of the celestial hosts of the universe and discern the undoubted functioning of the divine mind. And then on almost numberless occasions did we witness the working of this combined personality of man and God as it was activated by the apparent perfect union of the human and the divine minds. This is the limit of our knowledge of such phenomena; we really do not actually know the full truth about this mystery.