Didymos Thomas
There are many fingers pointing every where but if it is the Truth you are pointing at then why do you not follow Jesus. Jesus is ether a nice guy, or He is who He says He is The Truth the Way The Life.

If the Life that God has offered in and through His Son Jesus the Christ is unacceptable to you, then what life could you have, seeing that God is the source and giver of Life.

Nothing I have said rejects the notion that he is what you say he is. Only if you think he is the only Truth Way and Life will I have to disagree.

I've tried to be respectful. This sort of topic can be very personal to people; it certainly is to me, and it seems significant to you as well. I hope we do not fall into an endless, useless debate. Thus far I have found this to be good dialogue between different views.

The whole premise of the question is flawed. I've never suggested that it is unacceptable. What I have suggested is that Jesus is no more divine than anyone or anything else. I've also suggested that saying some physical things are more divine than other physical things is dualism. Dualism which has, as far as I can tell, only been supported by an appeal to God's power.

Didymos Thomas
Well concerning the nature of Jesus the Christ, He is the Word of God which is the Truth the Only Truth there is. Therefore the only Way to know God given By God in the flesh to the world so that those in the world may know God through The Truth, God’s Word the only One. The same Word revealed to creation when God said let there be Light. The same Voice of the Lord in the garden. The same that was to be called upon after Seth and Enos were born. The same that spoke to Noah. The same that spoke to Abraham, the same that choose Isaac, the same that blessed Jacob, the same that spoke to Moses.
The same Jesus the Christ who has come to establish His kingdom offering the Mercy of God, in Grace and Truth.

That is just a few things about the nature of Jesus, there is more if you like.

The same light may shine through many windows.

Didymos Thomas

more like: there are many shades of gray, but there is only One Light, the Lord Jesus.

Care to explain why Jesus is the only man who could teach truth?

You are still assuming that, for whatever reason, only Jesus could teach that truth.
Going back to something earlier:

The point is, I do follow Jesus. I find great value in his teachings, but why should I be so arrogant and presumptious to say that only the teachings of Jesus have value? Do I disregard the Tao-Te-Ching or Buddhist teaching because they are for a different society than the message of Jesus? No one since the time of Jesus has lived in the society the Gospels were written for (and they were, as a matter of historical fact, written for particular audiences).

The notion that truth can be told by someone other than Jesus does not diminish the greatness of Jesus. If the Holy Spirit was in Jesus as he taught, good! let us learn from him. If the Holy Spirit was in the Buddha as he taught, good! let us learn from him.

We both agree, it seems, that the Holy Spirit was in Jesus as he taught. We might disagree about the Buddha, but that's fine. The point is that such a thing is possible, and should not be ruled out. What is the Holy Spirit not capable of?

It seems like you would be interested in Kierkegaard's book Philosophical Fragments. If you have not already read it.

Are you sure you know what the Truth is? There is always something that comes back to me when I think about philosophy, it goes something like this: The Higher cannot come from the Lower (or the Lower cannot produce the Higher). For example, something perfect cannot come from imperfect things, no matter how many imperfect things there are.

To relate this, If the Truth is what Jesus taught, and if Jesus is God, and if God is the Truth, Then no man that is lower than God can teach the Truth. Since all men are lower than God, they will never be able to produce something Higher than them, which is the Truth.

The Holy Spirit is Jesus, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Basic Trinity.

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est

I appreciate the suggestion for reading, but I could as easily suggest something like "Living Buddha, Living Christ" to the same effect. I'm certainly open to any point of view; I can't think of anything I've argued here that is entirely orinial, so if you make his arguments here I'll be happy to engage them.

Then some correction is needed. The higher can come from the lower. Emergence is an example of this.

How high is God?

On a serious note, you are making the argument that Jesus is higher than men in the sense that he is capable of teaching something other men are not, and therefore, no other men can teach what he teaches.

Further, if the Truth is out of the reach of men, how can they ever know God?

Would you suggest the physical body of Jesus is the Holy Spirit? If so, you'll have to explain this dualism between Holy and unholy. If not, then what of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, if not his teaching (through word and deed)? And whatever it is, why is everyone else barred access to it?

Do you know what Kierkegaards book is about? I don't know what the books you suggested are about, but I bet they are nothing like Philosophical Fragments.

Good question. I am pretty sure his glorified body is. When we talk about Jesus, we have to remember that he is God and Man, in one. This is more or less unexplainable by us, we will have to wait and see how this logical inconsistency is possible.

Now, to answer your question. I woul have to say Yes. Since he is all God, even in his human form (a form that was concieved by the union of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary). To answer your question about dualism: There is no dualism because Jesus is both God and Man at the same time. It is not a dualistic nature, it is more like one nature, again, that is incomprehensible by us.

It may seem like I am talking in pardoxes, but my limited knowledge (and the nature of this beast) leave me no other option.

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est

I think we keep chaning our posts when the other is responding. Hold off until I respond again.

It was my fault for doing it first.

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est