It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's Time To Look At The Bible From A Different Perspective

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Jesus cannot be God in a purely exclusive sense because he said that his Father was greater than him. Nothing is greater than you if you are God.

Is a drop of water separate from the ocean? No, it is what the ocean is consisted of throughout, yet the ocean is greater than any one drop. This is why Jesus said he was one with the Father but his Father was greater than he was. The fullness of God dwelled within him just as a drop of water is what consists the entire ocean, what is within one drop of water is no different from the entire ocean.

The mind is what analyzes, consciousness is simply what is happening at any one moment apart from the mind. Like I said, you are conscious while meditating yet you put the worries of the mind aside. They are connected but they are not the same thing entirely.




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Jesus cannot be God in a purely exclusive sense because he said that his Father was greater than him. Nothing is greater than you if you are God.


See the difference between you and I, is I look into Scripture to determine what Christ meant when he said that.

Philippians 2:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

I believe God is a unique being that exist as three co-eternal persons. One of these persons is Christ, known also as the Logos. Above we are told Christ took on the nature of a servant, being made in human likeness, and we can cross reference this with John 1. Christ chose to make himself subservient to one of the other persons. The holy spirit another person comes to believers to reside within them, but only if Christ ask the father to send Him.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you."


Ok so the mind is the thinker, but what is consciousness I still can't understand what you mean?
edit on 25-11-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Hit reply early.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Being equal to God does not mean you are God in an exclusive sense though. You cannot be greater than yourself, that doesn't make much sense.

Have you read the Tripartite Tractate from the Dead Sea Scrolls? It speaks of the Son (Jesus) existing in 'parts' and being a 'brother to himself', this refers to the many bodies or 'slices' within the one loaf that the Son inhabits. We are those slices or 'parts' he exists within, being a brother (an individual slice) to himself (the loaf).

Jesus is the water within every droplet ('living waters will flow through you') with the ocean being God. One and the same but a droplet being 'smaller' than the whole.

And yes, God is 3-in-1 by having body, mind, and Spirit; Mother, Son, and Father, a spiritual union of the divine and the flesh, we are that union, each a child of God living through the light.
edit on 11/25/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Being equal to God does not mean you are God in an exclusive sense though.


That doesn't say that he is equal with God. It repeats what is said in Colossians 1:15. The word translated nature in Phillipians 2 is morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence. It is saying that Jesus was completely and totally God.

In Colossians 1:15, the word translated image is eikón and it means to be an exact representation of its source. Jesus is an exact representation of He who sent Him. The visible part of the Godhead.

In Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 5:1 we see the word demuth, which we translate likeness, it comes from damah which means to resemble something not to literally be its appearance. You see the meanings of the words used to describe us and the ones used to describe Jesus have totally different meanings.

The reasons it doesn't make sense is because you are trying to make God out to exist in the same way that you exist. You have to move out of that box to see.



Have you read the Tripartite Tractate from the Dead Sea Scrolls


From my knowledge that was found in the Nag Hammadi codices not the Dead Sea Scrolls and basically all of the church fathers claimed all of those as forgeries .



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He is correct, that is a gnostic text...

www.gnosis.org...

Though along the same lines of argument... the early church fathers also considered "revelation" heresy as well... yet it managed to get a place in "the book"




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Though along the same lines of argument... the early church fathers also considered "revelation" heresy as well... yet it managed to get a place in "the book"


Can you post a source on that?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Google is your friend bro

www.christian-community.org...

Still considered heresy by some denominations... clearly

reluctant-messenger.com...

In 364 at the council or Laodicea the book wasn't even considered for what was to be "canon" in the bible

It was nothing more then one of many apocalyptical books floating around at the time... all of which were considered heretical




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I was more looking for quotes from the early church fathers in which that call it heresy. Not saying it isn't there I just can't find it.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

God exists more than in the same way I exist, I am only the observer, God is everything. I could never begin to comprehend God in the same way I could never begin to comprehend the universe and how it works in full, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a part of the whole, the whole in part.
edit on 11/25/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

The Gnostics were very knowledgeable in the truth, they just wrote it in a different style than those who wrote the NT canon. There's a reason the Dead Sea Scrolls had to be hidden, they were dangerous to the status quo of the time: Rome and their conquest against such knowledge.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It seems to me you confuse God's omnipresence with his literal being. God has the ability to encompass all that is. I believe what you seem to be connecting with is his presence pervading all of creation. His all encompassing nature. What you are seeing is on of God's attributes presence in creation.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

God is more than just an all pervasive mind. He exist with three minds in a perfect relationship of love eternally. It to is a beautiful thing.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Akragon

I was more looking for quotes from the early church fathers in which that call it heresy. Not saying it isn't there I just can't find it.


Athanasius is the only one that actually mentions revelation as far as I can remember... and he was an extremely shady character in any case... likely responsible for the death of Arius, and completely responsible for the Trinitarian take over

the book wasn't discussed because it wasn't really important like I said, that style of writing was all over the place in the early few centuries

Origin says this...

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures

He lived in the late second century to the early third... approx. 180-250ad

and the first council that actually decided the canon in the bible happened about 100 years after his death... and revelation wasn't included...


edit on 25-11-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Akragon

The Gnostics were very knowledgeable in the truth, they just wrote it in a different style than those who wrote the NT canon. There's a reason the Dead Sea Scrolls had to be hidden, they were dangerous to the status quo of the time: Rome and their conquest against such knowledge.


Can't deny that... but there was also a reason the gnostic writers were disposed of...

They offered ideas that the church did not want to be taught... such as self reliance as opposed to church reliance

the church wanted the people to believe that they held the keys to heaven, and no one else...

And they got what they wanted by disposing of the competition... of which there was quite a bit




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The invisible qualities are within you: your thoughts, dreams, personality, etc.

When you think of Jesus the man, that thought is invisible yet it is clearly seen by what has been made. Gravity is invisible yet we see the effects of it by what has been made: planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

And yes, God is more than mind, he is body and Spirit as well. The universe is his body, we are slices of that universal loaf.
edit on 11/25/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Origin says this...

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures



It is Origen, just for future reference, but he seemed to think that revelations was inspired .

From Book 1
And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: Thus says the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For who else was He which is to come than Christ?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I agree, the Gnostic line of thought (including other non-Romanized doctrines) was dangerous to their empire driven agenda which included submitting to authority, looking outside of yourself for salvation (their priests and churches), paying taxes to Caesar, etc.

The church is not the true body or Bride if Christ, our bodies are, they are the temple of the Holy Spirit that dwells within them. The church is just one aspect of the dynastic society we live within, giving authority to those outside ourselves and our household. This is why the world is so screwed up now, we have given power to those whom we do not personally know and whom do not truly care about us.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Akragon




Origin says this...

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures



It is Origen, just for future reference, but he seemed to think that revelations was inspired .

From Book 1
And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: Thus says the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For who else was He which is to come than Christ?


Interesting...

I also find it interesting that Jesus didn't actually ever say that him and the Father are "one and the same" as origin puts it... In any case, the early fathers couldn't have agreed with his sentiments on the book or they would have included it without hesitation in the first established canon...

Perhaps it was included to reinforce Trinitarian doctrine... considering there is so little in the rest of the NT




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




I also find it interesting that Jesus didn't actually ever say that him and the Father are "one and the same" as origin puts it..


First a bit of the Socratic method, why was Jesus Crucified?

Second Jesus claimed that constantly you just have to understand the context of the situations and the old testament Scriptures Jesus is using to get his point across mainly to Pharisees people who knew the Old Scriptures very well.

In John 10 we see, the Jews ask “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Now another question for you, was the Messiah meant to be a separate entity from God or God himself?

Jesus responds by telling them that he has already told them who he is,
"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

After this the Jews respond by picking up stones to stone him, to which Jesus ask, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”


The Jews respond by saying, “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Now notice this is not the first time Jesus has expressed himself to the Pharisees and its not the first time they tried to stone him. We find Pharisees trying to stone Jesus in John 8 for claiming to be God again.

Jews: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

Jesus: 58 “Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!”

Reaction of Jews: 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

It is important to notice Jesus is talking to pharisees in both of these chapters. They know the old scriptures very well. When Jesus says before Abraham was born I am. He is implying that he is I am. Which comes from exodus in which Moses ask God,“Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

To which God responds 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The Pharisees knew the scripture well but Jesus went against their supposed knowledge showing them to be wrong. He came to say that God is not separate from us but that we are one with God. This is why Jesus prayed that people would become one as he and his Father were one, in order for them (us) to come to the knowledge of God within.


Luke 17
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


The word used for 'within' here literally means 'within', not 'among you' or 'in your midst' like some translations imply.

Within us, not out there in the world.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I've heard this explanation so many times I can't even count...


Now another question for you, was the Messiah meant to be a separate entity from God or God himself?


Denends on who you ask I suppose... The Messiah was supposed to bring peace to the earth according to the OT, Jesus didn't do that did he? And im not saying he wasn't the messiah, but I do believe many people were and still are very confused on exactly who Jesus was, even though he tells us plainly many times that he is "THE SON OF GOD" not God in the flesh as John says in the first chapter of his gospel...


Jesus responds by telling them that he has already told them who he is,
"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

After this the Jews respond by picking up stones to stone him, to which Jesus ask, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”


The Jews respond by saying, “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”


People said many things about him that weren't true... including the fact that he claimed to be God, which he did not... You should keep reading that passage instead of just stopping when you find what you want to hear...

Let me help you understand this...

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

((notice the question mark? It's there because he is questioning them on the lie they just threw at him))

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.


Now notice this is not the first time Jesus has expressed himself to the Pharisees and its not the first time they tried to stone him. We find Pharisees trying to stone Jesus in John 8 for claiming to be God again.

Jews: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

Jesus: 58 “Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!”

Reaction of Jews: 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.


And yet again we find that Jesus merely claimed to have existed before this incarnation... and not claiming to be God

Just saying I AM is not a declaration of himself being the Father... they are not one and the same... Just as when two become one In marriage they are ONE but not one and the same.


It is important to notice Jesus is talking to pharisees in both of these chapters. They know the old scriptures very well. When Jesus says before Abraham was born I am. He is implying that he is I am. Which comes from exodus in which Moses ask God,“Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

To which God responds 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’


And again, coming from the source is not claiming to be God...

The whole exodus story is a fairy tale in the first place... Jesus obviously knew that... And even if it was a true story, this entity isn't the Father Jesus spoke of... Jesus used the scriptures people understood, the ones he was raised on to relate to those he was speaking to... but he also knew what was of God and what was not, which is why he didn't use a lot of scripture in his sermons... only bits and pieces of them again, to relate to his audience...

And the fact still remains... IF he was God in the flesh, he would have said it plainly, and often... It wasn't even needed in a parable though because he never made the claim... not once

It was only after he died that people started claiming he was God... started adding things to scripture that he never said... and making silly assumptions about his very nature when he actually said it clearly... bluntly

Son OF God...





top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join