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.

 

The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I think that you are a little confused in your secret knowledge of understanding
Maybe exegesis might help




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: DISRAELI

Of course... i mean, Christian doctrine changed the very nature of God to three in one, even though nothing of the sort is taught in the NT or OT, save two passages which are both additions to the text

Its not so hard to believe that Jesus was pushing a God no one knew... especially since he even said that very thing


That's not actually true. There are indications that there was 2 or 3 beings in the old testament even though it's not taught.

Consider this.
Genesis 18
The Lord appears to Abraham. 2 others were with him.

Daniel 7
The Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. 2 distinct beings portrayed there.

Daniel 12
The Lord appears to Daniel with 2 companions.

Then we have the book of Zechariah.
Zechariah 4
The Lord has 2 immediate servants/personal assistants.

Zechariah 3 and 6
The servants are called the branches. And per the prophesy one was present at the building of the 2nd temple. And the other would be present at the building of the 3rd.

The book of Malachi.
The Lord and the 2 messengers of Malachi 3.
It's predicted the 3 of them would appear at the temple and purify the priests.

It might be a misinterpretation or an actual attempt at obfuscation. But as John 1 puts it.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Maybe someday it will be clarified as to the makeup of the Godhead It could be 1, 2, 3, or 4. It apparently wasn't a high priority subject at the time when the various books of the Bible were being written.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

Anyone who wants to make a distinction between them is obliged, in the first place, to explain away that phrase “my Father’s house”.


The creator God does not have a “physical” matter special place .It is not the temple that was in the physical city of Jerusalem.The creator God does not have a “house” that is what the Israelites and then the Jews believed and that was Yahoshua’s point.

Yahoshua stated over and over that salvation is the GOOD news of deliverance FROM Hades…the realm of death (the grave) and imperception (religion..belief through faith).The Jews were “selling” salvation (thieves) in the temple… the focus of their religion.The point wasn’t that it was in a “holy” place but they were selling their religion as salvation.


edit on 18-6-2016 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

When the Word, the true light, came to his own place [TA IDIA], “his own people [HOI IDIOI] did not receive him” (ch1 v11). “His own people” and “his own land” undoubtedly means the Jews in Judaea.
The people who reject Jesus, in this gospel, are the Jews, almost by definition.
Therefore John is claiming, on the Word’s behalf, that the Jews are the “special people” of the Word at the same time as they have always been the “special people” of the God of Israel.
This makes it impossible to separate the Word from the God of Israel.


John does not undoubtedly claim the Jews are the “special people” of the creator God.Yahoshua’s “own place”(position of enactment) is NOT the physical city of Jerusalem FROM the Jews as you are proposing it is Yahoshua(the deliverance of the creator God).The “people” of God is ALL of mankind not the Jews even though they are included…..that is elitism.Yahoshua stated over and over that salvation is for ALL of creation(including all of mankind).Yahoshua made it explicitly clear the “chosen” few are the disciples.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282
Even the Jews knew that God did not really "live" in the Temple. Solomon himself said as much; "Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built" (1 Kings ch8 v27).
The Temple is sometimes described as the place where the name of God dwells.
The point is that it was a place especially dedicated in honour of God, and in that sense "God's house".
Jesus and the rest of the Jews agreed in calling it that, and I was drawing attention to that point.
His complaint about the people in the Temple was that they were not treating it as God's house, whatever they called it.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
John does not undoubtedly claim the Jews are the “special people” of the creator God.

John says that the Word came to his own land and his own people did not receive him.
In this gospel, those who "do not receive him" are the Jews, almost by definition, so that comment has to be about the Jews. This is the analysis found in Westcott's commentary.

The “people” of God is ALL of mankind not the Jews even though they are included…..that is elitism.Yahoshua stated over and over that salvation is for ALL of creation(including all of mankind).Yahoshua made it explicitly clear the “chosen” few are the disciples.

You need to take into consideration the different stages in God's work.
The relationship BEGINS with Abraham and the successors of Abraham, and that is the case for the Old Testament period.
The effect of the new Testament is that the relationship expands into the rest of the world. For the period which has followed the resurrection of Christ, I agree with what you say.
However, John ch1 is still in the period just before the transition. At that moment in time, it remains the case that the Jews are particularly God's people, and that is why it is significant that they are also identified as belonging to the Word, "his own people". He was born amongst them, so that the inclusion of the rest of the world could begin from that point in space and time.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Rex282
Even the Jews knew that God did not really "live" in the Temple. Solomon himself said as much; "Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built" (1 Kings ch8 v27).
The Temple is sometimes described as the place where the name of God dwells.
The point is that it was a place especially dedicated in honour of God, and in that sense "God's house".
Jesus and the rest of the Jews agreed in calling it that, and I was drawing attention to that point.
His complaint about the people in the Temple was that they were not treating it as God's house, whatever they called it.


Yahoshua was obviously not speaking of the Temple of Solomon or even Herod’s Temple which your quote is extrapolated from(Solomon’s temple was destroyed almost 600 years prior).Yahoshua does not say they dishonor the Temple(of Herod) because Herod’s temple was completely corrupt and would be destroyed also.You are extrapolating your theory to fit your theology where there is no basis for it.

Yahoshua NEVER placed any significance on the Temple (Solomon’s or Herod’s) because the true house(bet ) is the Father(aleph) the creator God and THAT is what the Jews dishonored because they were “selling” salvation(deliverance) when Yahoshua(Yahweh is deliverance/salvation).They enacted the greatest perversion of this IN Herod’s temple and that is Yahoshua’s point.I He was not stating the Temple was significant but it was corrupt.Christianity has co-opted Israelite and Jewish theology where it is convenient then twisted it to form their own doctrines of men.

The big point is there is no “place” that holds any “honor” of the creator God.Solomon was essentially a polytheist Pagan who did not know the creator God.He even unwittingly admits so many times in his writings.The only wise thing he ever did that was wise was when wisdom was given to him by the creator God but it left him very early on…and that he knew vanity of vanity ALL is vanity done by man(including building a Temple in vain).

The fact is as Yahoshua stated many times the God the Jews worshiped was not the father the creator God or they would have known who he was.He was never in agreement with the Jews about their theology because he did not have a belief in faith of theology he KNEW the father the creator God.Not once does Yahoshua ever say or act that he believes or has faith in anything he only knows(this is NOT mystic gnosticism which is completely false).



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
Yahoshua was obviously not speaking of the Temple of Solomon or even Herod’s Temple which your quote is extrapolated from(Solomon’s temple was destroyed almost 600 years prior).Yahoshua does not say they dishonor the Temple(of Herod) because Herod’s temple was completely corrupt and would be destroyed also.

It's obvious enough from the context that he was talking about the building he was in at the time.
Just read the story. He went into the Temple, drove out the traders there, and said "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a place of trade" (John ch2 vv13-16).
Because the house was named after God, disrespectful treatment of the house amounted to disrespectful treatment of God.
That is the plain, straightforward, meaning of the words.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I thought that in Christianity Jesus was God in the New Testament.

Because God has revealed he his atleast 3 entities at the same time while each is its own identity they are still the same God.

So two new Gods are the revelation in the New Testament, but they are still one God.


But it is logical to say that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament because he was not fully revealed.

New is different , God in the New Testament is a New God to us , previously unrevealed.

New replaces old, even if it represents the old it is different just by being new.
edit on 19-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The God of John's Gospel and the God of the Old Testament is a suggestive statement that the Bible has multiple God's.

But then by using a lone Gospel selectively an attempt is made to "prove" that the God of the Old Testament is the same God Jesus came from.

Logic itself and an assessment of the character of the Old Testament God alone is enough to reason that was the whole point of Jesus becoming God by Revelation and the Holy Spirit Revealing the Father can not be the God who spoke to Moses.

Because the God of Moses said that he alone is God.

But very few people have the time to figure this out and I am certain that " I Am what I Am" is NOT the Father of Jesus but of the"Pharisees."

And for revealing the truth Jesus was killed.

The truth suppressed and reversed to further prevent brave souls from finding the true God.


TRUE GOD is kind enough to keep the Truth alive but he is at war with the God of Moses so very few find it.
edit on 19-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX
Yes, I accept the teaching of the Incarnation found in Chalcedon, that Christ is both God and man.
What I'm doing in this thread (and similar threads over the last couple of years) is combatting a fashionable theory that there is no connection at all between the Old Testament and New Testament Gods.
Once you appreciate that, you'll understand why I'm wording it this way. I'm affirming something which some people want to deny.

P.S. Your second post is contradicting your first post.
In the first, you begin by affirming the orthodox teaching that they are the same God.
In the second, you identify them as different gods.
You need to make up your mind, because you may be arousing suspicions about your identity.


edit on 19-6-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX
Yes, I accept the teaching of the Incarnation found in Chalcedon, that Christ is both God and man.
What I'm doing in this thread (and similar threads over the last couple of years) is combatting a fashionable theory that there is no connection at all between the Old Testament and New Testament Gods.
Once you appreciate that, you'll understand why I'm wording it this way. I'm affirming something which some people want to deny.

P.S. Your second post is contradicting your first post.
In the first, you begin by affirming the orthodox teaching that they are the same God.
In the second, you identify them as different gods.
You need to make up your mind, because you may be arousing suspicions about your identity.



It is not at all a contradiction if you follow it properly. At first I was affirming the state of current theology, then that logic and reason lead to the inevitable conclusion that the truth is not what current theology teaches.

The contradiction is the theology itself, and you are a great example of someone who just doesn't get it, in my opinion.

Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament, I am what I am is not of the New.

You need to sort through the information outside the Bible to find out what is going on in it.

Apocrypha is previously hidden material that only elect people could read. It means hidden away. It doesn't mean untrue. It is previously censored material that the Great God preserved despite all efforts to destroy and now that we have them we have a much better picture of the world in the first century up to the third.

We would be fools not to believe God had a hand in preserving Apocrypha.
edit on 19-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The"Father" is the Invisible Spirit, greater than a God, the One who has no limitable, fathomable, measurable, visible, effable, nameable nature.

Only way to know "God" is knowledge, truth, wisdom, faith and intuition.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX


Apocrypha is previously hidden material that only elect people could read. It means hidden away. It doesn't mean untrue. It is previously censored material that the Great God preserved despite all efforts to destroy and now that we have them we have a much better picture of the world in the first century up to the third.


Actually the apocrypha(non-canon) were always there for anyone interested to read them. They were simply excluded from the public use of the church because of their nature. Only in the Gnostic movement there were kept secret because :


they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge considered too profound or too sacred to be disclosed to anyone other than the initiated.
For example, the disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus boasted that they possessed the secret (ἀπόκρυφα) books of Zoroaster. The term in general enjoyed high consideration among the Gnostics (see Acts of Thomas, pp. 10, 27, 44).

Source

Peace



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX


Apocrypha is previously hidden material that only elect people could read. It means hidden away. It doesn't mean untrue. It is previously censored material that the Great God preserved despite all efforts to destroy and now that we have them we have a much better picture of the world in the first century up to the third.


Actually the apocrypha(non-canon) were always there for anyone interested to read them. They were simply excluded from the public use of the church because of their nature. Only in the Gnostic movement there were kept secret because :


they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge considered too profound or too sacred to be disclosed to anyone other than the initiated.
For example, the disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus boasted that they possessed the secret (ἀπόκρυφα) books of Zoroaster. The term in general enjoyed high consideration among the Gnostics (see Acts of Thomas, pp. 10, 27, 44).

Source

Peace



That is blatantly false. Nobody was called Gnostic then and the groups that got labeled that were not secretive at all.

How do you think they knew, wrote about and eventually vanquished them.

By the time of Athanasius the law of Canon forced them to hide books that were banned, that we have found and are Christian writings that they were FORCED BY THE CHURCH to hide and/or keep secret.

Meanwhile in Catholic world in reality you could get executed for having a canonical Bible. The priests did not let people read it until King James generation.

The book of Zoroaster is the Zend Avesta and is mentioned as a source for angelic names ( Apocryphon of John), which it has in spades.

The amount of error in your statement is noteworthy.


It is not a bad thing to have Zoroastrian sacred books, and the quote saying that they boasted about it contradicts your sloppy attempt at labeling them as secretive.

Apocrypha means hidden away for a very good reason. They became illegal and only Ethiopia and Egypt were able to preserve the banned texts. Ethiopia was outside of Roman Jurisdiction and the source of 80% or so of the Apocrypha we have.

And your quote is wrong because Acts of Thomas had no connection with the Gnostics and was originally in Aramaic most likely. It belongs in the Acts of the Ebionites.

So don't give me that nonsense about them being freely available because you are obviously not speaking from knowledge.
edit on 19-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: Akragon


Love and Jealousy are not compatible with each other... How can this god be a jealous one, and for that matter what could he possibly be jealous of... being the creator of all?

Just my 2 cents on that matter.

In my opinion it depends on the context and they can be compatible. For example, i am working as CAD-Designer in the Car-Indusrty. In my job i am creating concepts, and find technical solutions for different parts of the Car, be it Interior or exterior. The love that i have for my job, can make me jealous. I do not mean in negative way of "jealousy" but on the positive way as i want the best.

So me being jealous in my job as CAD-Designer, does that make me an evil person? The same can be said about God. God loves His creation, loves His people and wants the best for them.

Peace
/

I'll have to disagree with your opinion

You are human like everyone else... why would a god, let alone "the God" have such a petty emotion such as Jealousy?

What could he possibly be Jealous of?

Apparently Disraeli has the answer but we'll have to wait for that...




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I would also like to point out:

Jesus can not possibly be the only Son of I am who I am.

Because the Sons of God had sex with the daughters of men. Having multiple Son's makes it impossible for Jesus to be the"Only Son of I am who I am", God of Moses.

And in Deuteronomy the nations are apportioned according to the Sons of God (The Most High), who theology alleges is I.a.w.I.a.

Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh
HYHSHRHYH is how this name would appear, no vowels or spaces. Let's play a game.

HYH (I am) SHRH (aSHeRaH) and YH (YaHue?)

Which could explain the origins of Yahweh (YaHue is very close to Yahweh).

Nevertheless, Yahweh had a wife named Asherah and much archeological evidence proves this.

The same wife who formerly was El's.

Then the God Ba'al.

Mystery Babylon.

Clearly the Father of Jesus is none of these God's. My Father in heaven who sent me is never written as Adonai, Yahweh or any of the million epithets he has.

And the God of the Pharisees, Yahwistic Jews, is called "Your father, the devil" and it is well known that Jews were not Satan worshippers because to them he was just an angel with a job to do called the Adversary.

edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually, the Jews did believe that the Spirit of God was in the Holy of Holies between the Cherubim. The Cherubim would embrace each other at times and the Ark of the Covenant was housed in the Holy of Holies because it had the Power of God and only the pure could handle its Power. People died from touching it.

Your statement is a pure oversimplification of God and the meaning of Holy of Holies, Solomon and his Temple .

By rendering it historical, even though no reason exists to believe that Solomon or his fabulous Kingdom ever existed, the whole symbolic meaning is lost. What is meant by God living in the Temple in the Holy of Holies is that God lives in us, we are the Temple and the Holy of Holies is the brain, the Arc that special pine cone shaped gland the pineal, long known as the third eye.

The same eye Jesus spoke of. This pineal gland is how we communicate with God.

The ancient religions teach a universal truth, not history.
edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

Tell me, what is "mystic Gnosticism."

And also what is the extent of your knowledge (of this rather pejorative statement) that makes you able to define Gnosticism when an academic consensus of its definition has not been established?

But I can tell you that there was no bigger "mystic" than Jesus.

And if anyone had Gnosis it was him.

Did you know that the scriptures found in Egypt are as old or older than the Canonical Gospels? And they don't teach mysticism?

Although Gnosis can be mystical, it is not the focus of the teachings.

Prayer is mysticism. No different than casting a spell and believing it will work. Your intentions determine the results.

Meditation is mysticism.

And Jesus loved mystery and mysticism and enlightening the simple to the point that they are wiser than the educated.

If Gnostic mysticism is false, then Jesus was too. What did he teach if not knowledge (gnosis) of the mysteries (mysticism)?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seed76
Only in the Gnostic movement there were kept secret because :

The Antichrist Exposed: The Watchtower (2006):

Spreading Religious Lies

The apostle Paul warned his fellow worker Timothy to beware of the teachings of apostates, such as Hymenaeus and Philetus, whose “word will spread like gangrene.” Paul added: “These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:16-18) Apparently, Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection was a symbolic one and that Christians had already been resurrected in a spiritual sense. Granted, becoming a genuine disciple of Jesus brings one to life from God’s standpoint, which Paul himself plainly stated. (Ephesians 2:1-5) Nevertheless, the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus disregarded Jesus’ promise of a literal resurrection of the dead under God’s Kingdom rule.—John 5:28, 29.

Ideas of a purely symbolic resurrection were later developed by a group called Gnostics. Believing that knowledge (gnoʹsis in Greek) could be derived in a mystical way, Gnostics combined apostate Christianity with Greek philosophy and Oriental mysticism. For instance, they held that all physical matter is evil, and for that reason, Jesus did not come in the flesh but only seemed to have a human body—a belief called Docetism. As we have seen, this is precisely what the apostle John had warned against.—1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 7.

Another fabrication, concocted centuries later, is the doctrine of the so-called holy Trinity, which makes the assertion that Jesus is both Almighty God and the Son of God. In his book The Church of the First Three Centuries, Dr. Alvan Lamson states that the doctrine of the Trinity “had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” Who were these “Platonizing Fathers”? They were apostate clerics who were infatuated with the teachings of pagan Greek philosopher Plato.

The engrafting of the Trinity was a masterstroke of the antichrist, for this doctrine shrouded God in mystery and blurred his relationship with the Son. (John 14:28; 15:10; Colossians 1:15) Just think, how can one “draw close to God,” as encouraged by the Scriptures, if God is a mystery?—James 4:8.

Adding to the confusion, many Bible translators have taken God’s name, Jehovah, out of their translations, even though it occurs over 7,000 times in the original text! Clearly, attempting to turn the Almighty into not just a mystery but a nameless mystery is an act of gross disrespect for our Creator and his inspired Word. (Revelation 22:18, 19) Furthermore, replacing the divine name with such titles as Lord and God is a violation of Jesus’ model prayer, which says in part: “Thy name be hallowed [or, made holy].”—Matthew 6:9, The New English Bible.

Tatian—Apologist or Heretic?: The Watchtower (2003)

Tatian—Apologist or Heretic?

TOWARD the end of his third missionary journey, the apostle Paul called a meeting of the older men of the congregation in Ephesus. He told them: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”—Acts 20:29, 30.

True to Paul’s words, the second century C.E. proved to be a time both of change and of the foretold apostasy. Gnosticism, a widespread religious and philosophical movement that polluted the faith of some believers, was on the move. Gnostics believed that spiritual things are good and that all matter is evil. Reasoning that all flesh is evil, they rejected marriage and procreation, claiming that Satan originated these. Some of them believed that since only that which pertains to the spirit is good, it does not matter what a man does with his physical body. Such viewpoints resulted in extreme life-styles, either asceticism or fleshly indulgence. The Gnostic claim that salvation came only from mystical Gnosticism, or self-knowledge, left no room for the truth of God’s Word.

How did professed Christians respond to the threat of Gnosticism? Some learned men spoke out against its erroneous doctrine, while others succumbed to its influence. Irenaeus, for example, embarked on a lifelong struggle against heretical teachings. He had been educated by Polycarp, a man who was a living link to the apostles. Polycarp recommended strong adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Despite having learned under the same tutelage, however, Irenaeus’ friend Florinus lapsed into the teachings of Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement. Those were turbulent times indeed.

Shedding light on the climate of that period are the works of Tatian, a notable writer of the second century. What kind of a man was Tatian? How did he become a professed Christian? And how did Tatian fare under the influence of Gnostic heresy? His intriguing rejoinders and his own example provide valuable lessons for truth-seekers of today.
...

Check out the link if you want to know the rest (there's more in the first link as well).

edit on 20-6-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join