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.

 

Who or What is God???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I post this question because I do not believe Jesus is god. In fact he said he wasn't over and over in the bible. So what or who is God then, and what was Jesus's real purpose in being here?




posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaimless
I post this question because I do not believe Jesus is god. In fact he said he wasn't over and over in the bible. So what or who is God then, and what was Jesus's real purpose in being here?


Jesus did say He was God. John 14:7 is one. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Jesus' purpose was that He was born to die(and come back from the dead) for the sins of mankind and make it possible for us to be restored to a relationship with God. A person will not live in eternity with God unless that person places their faith in Christ.

God is the sovereign ruler of the universe.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaimless
I post this question because I do not believe Jesus is god. In fact he said he wasn't over and over in the bible. So what or who is God then,


God is.

Anything else is a human attempt at personifying a concept that may seem alien without any adjectives.


and what was Jesus's real purpose in being here?


Without Christ none of us would be able to break free from the bondages of suffering.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaimless
So what or who is God then,


Perhaps the term as best as we can rationalize is still based upon the the messages themselves, who is delivering them, and the intentions of the messengers, message makers, and the intentions of the messages themselves.

So who is delivering the messages on behalf of God?

Angels?
Our own future (future man)?
Aliens (Celestrial neighbors)?

Humanity's future and aliens together?

If time travel is possible (even if only a message), then man will find a way. If man can find a way, he will. If man will find a way to utilize time travel, time travel has already been achieved in the future. If time travel has been achieved in the future, it's effects can be measured throughout history.

Just a few thoughts. But . . .. .

If we find a way to deliver ideals or technology to past, then we would accumilate the prerequisites for time travel at a sooner time, then we would use that technology sooner than what we had in the previous time-line, advancing us to a point where we actually use time travel sooner than before. In effect leaving time itself Phi'd over and over and over again, and all times easily accomplished without our knowledge that we had already achieved this previously and out of a percieved necessity (fear of unknown/change).

Interesting delema.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus did say He was God. John 14:7 is one. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
That's a far stretch, especially considering the things He said which contradict such a claim--all said as plain spoken as could be...


Matthew 11:27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


This is what He spoke of in John 14:7--He was speaking of revelation, not identity.


Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus' purpose was that He was born to die(and come back from the dead) for the sins of mankind and make it possible for us to be restored to a relationship with God. A person will not live in eternity with God unless that person places their faith in Christ.

The purpose of His birth was not death, but life--not sin but freedom from prison of death inherent to a 'sinful body', i.e. one made of flesh.
'Coming back from the dead' serves no fundamental purpose toward sin and its inherent penalty of death....

'Salvation' and 'justification' are not synonyms of one another.

The primary purpose was to demonstrate the truth about death--that it is not what we believe it to be--and the only way to life is through the doorway of death. This demonstration planted the seeds of truth still growing today--amongst all the weedy confusion of religion, dogma, and man-made theories about God and what man chooses to believe God wants.


John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


the way:
hodos
Apparently a primary word; a road; by implication a progress (the route, act or distance); figuratively a mode or means: - journey, (high-) way.

cometh unto the Father
the Greek gives the idea of reaching a destination--which is God, the Father--who is pure Spirit

but by me
the Greek literally means, 'except through me'--'through' being defined as 'A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act.'

The act required to open our way through to the only possible channel to God (spiritual reality) is indeed something of the straitest nature--our own natural death.


Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


We all must die alone; this is the essential and literal definition of the narrowest passage a soul can and will travel through. These words were not a call to create or encourage us to embrace any sort of man's religion--but rather to instruct us to enter into death without fear in the mistaken belief it is the end of life--for it is truly not the end of all but the beginning of a bigger reality that will stretch into forever.

The way is death, but the truth is life. And the light is the example demonstrated by the resurrection. No doubt the original 'light at the end of the tunnel.' Of course, the 'tunnel' is nothing more than a product of our limited human perspective--tunnel vision to be exact.

A person cannot realize the true nature of living reality if their mind doesn't allow them to consider the seemingly impossible and fantastic--which is the continuance of life beyond the fetters of material existence.

What 'sin' is, is the covering up (by the flesh) of the spirit within...
Sin separates us from God...because flesh is what we are and God is pure Spirit. It is the failure to realize what the root of the human soul is (Spirit, not flesh) that is the source of that which we call sin. To esteem material things, of any sort, over things which are ethereal but everlasting--which are love, compassion, joy, generosity, and a pure, nonjudgmental spirit of acceptance toward one another--for we all members of God's family. One Creator begat all life, directly and indirectly, spiritually and materially.


Originally posted by dbrandt
God is the sovereign ruler of the universe.
No doubt. Yet the gap between 'pure Spirit' and 'flesh and blood' was filled by the 'right arm' of the Most High--to govern a material citizenry was the First Cause for the LORD (Jesus Christ).
God, (the Father, pure Spirit,) is the ultimate and most supreme Ruler--the root source of both the creation and the energy driving creation.

We make our petitions to the LORD, who is the functional creator and Chief Magistrate of this Earth and all that dwell in it.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Now--as to my own personal offering in way of an answer to the question of this thread: 'Who or what is God?'


  • God is the reward Genesis 15:1
  • God is not a man ( that he should lie) Numbers 23:19
  • neither the son of man (that he should repent
    Numbers 23:19
  • God is a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24
  • God is refuge Deuteronomy 33:27
  • God is hidden Isaiah 45:15
  • God is a revealer of secrets Daniel 2:47
  • God is perfect Matthew 5:48
  • God is a Spirit John 4:24
  • God is the author of peace (not confusion) 1 Corinthians 14:33
  • God is one Galatians 3:20
  • God is light 1 John 1:14
  • God is love 1 John 4:8


That list is a scriptural reference to the aspects/nature of God of which I, myself, can truthfully give personal witness. There's no doubt more and then even more to know about God (once no longer hidden, that is). Even if this was all--for me it would still qualify as an 'exceeding great reward.' The words are simple yet they cannot come close to actually describing what they mean in regard to the Creator and Most High.

[color=#FF0000]We all have the same ability to know God--He is light and that light is inside each of us--if only we would yield to the glow within--and fear is the veil that covers the lamp.


John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
GOD IS EVERYTHING OR NOTHING, and plays with us on "Freewill" like the PC Game "The Sims", just so we can learn stuff and some how come back to him for some reason. Maybe it's an inyusaha thing(a popular anime show on adult swim on Cartoon Network), the bad guy Nurogue(Satan for the japanesse and in stories) has to have everything he makes and the people who embelish it come back to him with 1, the shards of the sacred jewel(thier knowleadge of how to use evil well), 2, phsychially(their lust be granted.), or 3, spritually(selling their soul), he get's stronger, and I guess the same is true for god, just you know not as depressing. God's also time, without time too. He's also me and BSB too. Just not how you'd think it. LOL



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus did say He was God. John 14:7 is one. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
That's a far stretch, especially considering the things He said which contradict such a claim--all said as plain spoken as could be...





Not a stretch at all, it means what it says.

So, who did Jesus claim to be? Who does the Bible say He was? First, let's look at Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).

www.gotquestions.org...

www.gotquestions.org...

[edit on 29-11-2005 by dbrandt]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
The purpose of His birth was not death, but life--not sin but freedom from prison of death inherent to a 'sinful body', i.e. one made of flesh.
'Coming back from the dead' serves no fundamental purpose toward sin and its inherent penalty of death....



He sure did come to die for a purpose and reason. It's through His death that sin was judged. Then He rose again that we could enter eternal life.
The resurrection serves a purpose.
Hebrews
9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

9:23
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

9:24
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

9:25
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation

The key passage on Christ’s resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15. In this chapter, the Apostle Paul explains why it is crucial to understand and believe in Christ’s resurrection. The resurrection is important for the following reasons: (1) If Christ was not raised from the dead, believers will not be either (1 Corinthians 15:12-15). (2) If Christ was not raised from the dead, His sacrifice for sin was not sufficient (1 Corinthians 15:16-19). Jesus’ resurrection proved that His death was accepted by God as the atonement for our sins. If He had simply died and stayed dead that would indicate His sacrifice was not sufficient. As a result, believers would not be forgiven for their sins, and they would still remain dead after they die (1 Corinthians 15:16-19) – there would be no such thing as eternal life (John 3:16). “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20 NAS). Christ has been raised from the dead – He is the first fruits of our resurrection.

www.gotquestions.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus did say He was God. John 14:7 is one. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Not a stretch at all, it means what it says.

And it says 'he that has seen me has seen the Father.' It does not say, 'I am the Father.'

If that were so, then this verse must be thrown out:


John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.


*note: This also nullifies the author's claim (on your linked-to website) that the Father is 'I AM' of the OT...but that's another thread altogether...

Of course, a verse here and a verse there can be presented as 'proof' of any idea--biblical or otherwise--that's the accepted practice for most, after all.
It's irresponsible if done under the heading of 'what the bible says.'



John 14:10-13 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.


'The Father that dwelleth in me.' '...that the Father may be glorified in the Son.'

Your statement is not holding water.


So, who did Jesus claim to be?

Not God the Father. Not once.
-He did, amongst His disciples, confirm Peter's declaration (by divine revelation) that He was 'the Christ, the Son of the Living God.'

Also, to the High Priest He answered that He was, indeed, 'the Christ, the Son of the Blessed.'

He did claim to be the Christ, the Messiah--the Son of the Living God.

However, in public, He most usually referred to Himself as the 'Son of Man'; this was to the masses and the Jewish governing body:


Luke 22:66-71
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
Art thou the Christ? tell us.
And he said unto them,
If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Then said they all,
Art thou then the Son of God?
And he said unto them,
Ye say that I am.
And they said,
What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.


He was asked 'are you the Son of God?' in order to entrap Him--His reply evaded the trap, yet it was still used as a snare. How we choose to apply and understand the words of others, whomever they are, does not truly change the meaning intended by the speaker of those words. Christ never this at that point, yet it was received as if He did...

Christ did not say, in John 14:7, that He was God.

Yet so many receive it this way. This is creating so-called truth by auto-suggestion. It's basically 'hearing what you want to hear,' but it is not the same as the kind of hearing that 'those with ears' hear.

...Also, in an exchange with the Pharisees, He did say 'Before Abraham was, I AM.' This was obviously more significant than just the common use as a first person singular present indicative--for it incited the Pharisees to grab up the nearest available stones suited for casting at law-breakers.

*again--that's the makings for a whole other thread


John 8:58-59
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.


Christ did not ever once claim to be God, the Father. God the Father is not the same as the LORD Jesus Christ. The Father was in Christ--and Christ in the Father. However, they are not the exact same--exact same = 'equal' by default. No where are we told there is that sort of essential equality between the Son and the Father. 'Similar' is also 'same' but it describes nature, not identity--in that regard we are told that Christ is the same as God the Father; as He is God's 'express image.'

That was another part of the Purpose: manifestating the Father who would otherwise never been even detected through only human means:


John 12:44-45
Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

John 17:6
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.



Who does the Bible say He was?

I daresay that almost wholly depends upon who is reading and 'hearing' what the 'bible says.' It depends on the ear of understanding--the fleshly one or the Spiritual one.


First, let's look at Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God.

Because it is not.

Look elsewhere:


John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.


The idea of 'one' and of being 'in' another--these are not principles of proving identity. A man and woman, in holy matrimony, enter that covenant with their sights fixed upon the goal of one day 'becoming one.' And this is the ideal. Yet it has nothing to do with 'Mr.' literally becoming 'Mrs.' or vice versa. Those who dwell within our heart of hearts, also, are 'in' us--and hopefully we are 'in' them, as well. However, we are still ourselves, just as they are still themselves.


John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


These verses totally discredit any valid claim that by instructing and discussion the concept of spiritual unity, Christ was declaring absolute identity. In fact, the nature of His teachings do not include such an idea of 'absolute identity.' Absolute identity is an ego-driven, non-united, concept of self--while it is something that is an inherent phase in the human consciousness, it is not rooted in spiritual reality. It is only seen with a fleshly outlook, and fades and disappears with the development of eyes that truly 'see.'


However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).

Seriously--who cares about what the Jews perceived and therefore reacted upon?


Does their reaction determine your understanding? And if so--is that truly beneficial?

That was not included to give substantiation to that party's ideas and conceptions--it is for the purpose of instruction, not imitation.

And so, who/what did truly Christ claim to be?
  • the bread of life
  • the light of the world
  • the door of the sheep
  • the good shepherd
  • the resurrection and the life
  • the way, the truth, and the life
  • the true vine

Also--He agreed with the disciples that He was their LORD and master:

John 13:13-16
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.


'He that is sent' and 'he that sent him...'

Christ did not send Himself:


John 7:28-29
Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

John 7:16-17
Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.


Many others:

  • John 3:17 For God sent not his Son...
  • John 5:23 ...that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
  • John 5:36-37 ...that the Father hath sent me.
    And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me...
  • John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name...
  • John 8:16 ...for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
  • John 14:23 ...and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
  • John 14:24...the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
  • John 15:24...but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
  • John 17:3 ...that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



www.gotquestions.org...

www.gotquestions.org...

Is this about 'who Jesus claimed to be' and 'who the bible says He is'?
Or is it about what 'someone else who seems to be an authority
(because they successfully market their theology or made the best-seller list) says the bible says?'

Who is your ultimate authority, then?
Lee Strobel? Tim LaHaye?
'www.God.com'?




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus did say He was God. John 14:7 is one. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Not a stretch at all, it means what it says.

And it says 'he that has seen me has seen the Father.' It does not say, 'I am the Father.'




I was looking back over the last post of mine and the one before it. Now I'm not sure but we maybe having a disagreement for nothing. I originally said Jesus is God, which I still say, and you disagreed with that.

God is one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So before I carry on more, are we arguing about Jesus being God or something else?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
God is one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


Small club. Any room for expansion?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by queenannie38
The purpose of His birth was not death, but life--not sin but freedom from prison of death inherent to a 'sinful body', i.e. one made of flesh.
'Coming back from the dead' serves no fundamental purpose toward sin and its inherent penalty of death....


Originally posted by dbrandt
He sure did come to die for a purpose and reason.


Once again, you did not pay careful attention to my words...
I did not say that He did not come both to die and for 'a purpose and reason.' In fact, there are many reasons and several crucial purposes served by His visitation and His departure.

What I was opposing was your statement:


Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus' purpose was that He was born to die(and come back from the dead) for the sins of mankind and make it possible for us to be restored to a relationship with God. A person will not live in eternity with God unless that person places their faith in Christ


that seemed to infer that there was just one purpose (death) and one reason (sin). Such an assertion makes something ever vibrant and enduring seem flat, dead, and hopeless. Because we all were born to die. I am sure that your understanding and belief is not 'flat, dead, and hopeless,' but what you said was not for your benefit, but toward giving good answer to another's question--why not express it as you feel it?


It's through His death that sin was judged.
That was the method of atonement for sin, was it not?


Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;


The 'judging' part is not the same as the atonement--the atonement 'blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us' by 'nailing it to his cross' Colossians 2:14

His role as the passover victim atoned for 'past' sins--that was the covering aspect and legal requirement of the 'handwritten ordinances.'

Also, there was provision for 'future' sin:


Romans 6:6-8 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:



Originally posted by dbrandt
Then He rose again that we could enter eternal life.
Right. He rose again in order to return to the Father--and to forge 'the Way' which is the 'truth and the life.' He is the 'resurrection and the life.'

But the death and the resurrection, while intrinsically linked together, did not serve the self-same purposes, respectively.
Together they serve a purpose, and separate, they serve separate purposes. And then there are many shades in between for many other purposes, as well. But the resurrection did not atone for sin and the death did not demonstrate the truth of life to us.


The resurrection serves a purpose.
Indeed; but the verses you cite as supporting this are related to the purpose of the passover victim--that first, imperfect, mode of sacrifice (the lamb slain each year) never once rose from the dead a few days after the Passover meal was eaten.


The resurrection is important for the following reasons: (1) If Christ was not raised from the dead, believers will not be either (1 Corinthians 15:12-15).
No, if Christ was not resurrected, then there is no resurrection of the dead. Not 'dead believers.' Just 'the dead.'

There is resurrection promised to both the 'just' and the 'unjust' (not 'believers' and 'doubters' but both those who are righteous and those who are not). Acts 24:15


John 5:28-29
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


'...unto the resurrection of life...' and '...the resurrection of damnation'

'Eternal' life is 'perpetual' life. 'Damnation' is 'justice/judgment'.

Resurrection is for all the dead.


(2) If Christ was not raised from the dead, His sacrifice for sin was not sufficient (1 Corinthians 15:16-19). Jesus’ resurrection proved that His death was accepted by God as the atonement for our sins. If He had simply died and stayed dead that would indicate His sacrifice was not sufficient. As a result, believers would not be forgiven for their sins, and they would still remain dead after they die (1 Corinthians 15:16-19) – there would be no such thing as eternal life (John 3:16).

Huh? Eternal life is rooted in God the Father--there was likely a time that there was 'no such thing but eternal life.'


1 Corinthians 15:16-19 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.


If Christ did not rise, then death still reigns over us--as the wages of sin.
The determination of whether God accepted a sacrificial atonement is based upon whether or not it was done by a qualified priest (anointed and pure) and if the sacrificial victim met God's requirements (as given through Moses regarding priestly service). We know these conditions were met; however Paul is not addressing these concepts in 1 Corinthians 15. What Paul is emphasizing is that the resurrection is not wishful thinking--it is trustworthy and completely reliable--also universally applicable to all the dead. 'The dead' rise--and 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'

Resurrection is salvation--rescue from the prison of mortal death and the chains of finite mortal existence. You are confusing justification with salvation, and belief (hope) with faith (the charge of a trust).

Christ had to place His full belief (hope) in God the Father---that His promise was true. He died and was wholly dependent upon the Father to raise Him. He came, in His resurrected form, to the disciples, so that they could bear witness to serve as example for everyone else, that God's word is true--He is 100% faithful and will do as He promises. It is not risky to trust in the idea of resurrection--and we were given the example through Christ. To believe in the resurrection is not to believe in Christ--it is to believe in God's ultimate power of all things. Christ's faith (the complete performance of the task given to Him by God) is what saves us--He trusted in God and God alone and in so doing gave us both the example to live by and the hope to trust in.


John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


To believe Christ is to believe His words, His teachings, as being authorized and ordained by God the Father. To demonstrate faith thereof is to serve as witness that these things are true and reliable. To hope in the resurrection of the dead is to free one's mind from the delusion of death's prison.

We must trust the hope given toward life beyond our earthly grave--but that trust, that hope, is not what saves us. Christ saved us, and our present trust and hope will serve us toward spending the rest of our mortal lives without fear--blessed by the 'peace that passes understanding.' And that freedom is what then enables us to 'keep the faith' and spread this understanding to others. That freedom frees our human mental occupation from worry over 'sin' and 'judgment' so that we can serve the truth with a complete dedication.


2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.


To promote the idea that God is only going to resurrect some of the dead--and that not everyone has reason not to fear--that is sowing fear, not love. That is not a righteous (read: fair and just) declaration--it is not from God but from the ego--and its need to justify one's self as somehow worthy of God's mercy and grace (at the expense of condemning others). Why must we do anything to be worthy of God's mercy and love? It is written that we cannot earn this gift--it is given by God and cannot be obtained any other way. God created us all--and He did not create anything in vain. Therefore what He gives to one He will give to all. There is a gift (life) and a reward or judgment for each (depending upon what one does in life). Both will be administered with absolute fairness. The punishments are given not for the purpose of destruction but for instruction--what will be destroyed is the material 'works', the flesh--what will be saved will be the soul:


1 Corinthians 3:13-15
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.



“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20 NAS). Christ has been raised from the dead – He is the first fruits of our resurrection.

No, He is the first fruit of the vineyard--He is the true vine--we are only 'fruits' on the vine--The Father is the husbandman. We are of Him--He is not of us. He is the firstfruit of the Spirit--the firstfruit of God, not of us. (John 15)

'Those who are asleep' is a figurative term for the dead--Christ is the first-born of the dead. No one rose from the grave before He did--hence 'Abraham's bosom' was the figurative reference for those waiting for the future resurrection.

[edit on 11/29/2005 by queenannie38]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by dbrandt
God is one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


Small club. Any room for expansion?


Are you interested in joining? Or just making general inquiry?

God is one God, no doubt. God is not a person, though--at least we are told this in scripture.

Where did the 'God in 3 persons' idea come from, anyway?

The majority is not always correct or accurate--however, the majority of the world assumes that it is. And so, we have the majority believing the majority is right; this idea based on a general principle of major assumption.

And so the snowball continues to gather speed and more snow as it barrels down the hill, aimed for the sacred hall of truth.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by dbrandt
God is one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


Small club. Any room for expansion?


As in is there more room for people who want to be a god. People will never become God or be a god. As far as expansion, anyone accepting by faith, what Jesus Christ has already accomplished on the cross for the removal of their sin, will be joint heirs with Christ.

Romans 8
8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

So yes you can become a "clubmember" but it's on God's terms not anyone else's.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by dbrandt]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
God is one God, no doubt. God is not a person, though--at least we are told this in scripture.

Where did the 'God in 3 persons' idea come from, anyway?




Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.

God is not a person in the sense you are taking the word person as. But Jesus is God and is 100% God and 100% man at the same time.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
I was looking back over the last post of mine and the one before it. Now I'm not sure but we maybe having a disagreement for nothing. I originally said Jesus is God, which I still say, and you disagreed with that.

God is one God in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So before I carry on more, are we arguing about Jesus being God or something else?
I sure would like to think we were 'debating' rather than 'arguing'...if you know what I mean.


We can both learn and grow by debating, but arguing is of a nature contrary to that which we aim for, IMO.

Anyway, for clarification--it seems to hinge more on what we each define as 'God'--and I think that, in itself, has quite the potential as a lively debate subject, too...

It might suffice, on my part, to establish that I do not subscribe to the idea set forth in the Nicene Creed. I do not feel it is prudent for me to try to define God with some sort of neatly packaged, widely accepted recitation that was written by men for the purposes of conformity in religious doctrine.

If I put God in a box--what purpose is served? There is no future in making God fit into my mind--I must grow to fit into His.

However, I do believe that Christ was completely and genuinely human--yet the Spirit of God the Father was fully invested in that same human form.
He was fully God--yet He was not God. Neither was He 'just a man' although He was 'fully human.'

He was the point of convergence of spirit and flesh and is the bridge between us and God.

Neither is the Holy Spirit actually God--yet the Holy Spirit is directly of and from God--through the power created by the life and death of Christ--without the Holy Spirit we would not be able to cross the bridge provided through Christ....

There are many parts of what we perceive as God--but yet there is just one First Cause, one Original Source, one Most High--which is pure Spirit, as it is written.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Christianity.
Specifically, the Roman Catholic Church--originally at the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD.

Now, considering your public statements in these forum threads
here
& here, what, then, is the principle upon which you place your assertion and faith that this is the truth about God? Because the truth in question seems very similar--if not the same--as one that originated out of an institution that you say you do not trust.


Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
They are not separate--nor are they one in the same.


God is not a person in the sense you are taking the word person as. But Jesus is God and is 100% God and 100% man at the same time.
Then why use the word in the first place? The sense that I am taking the word 'person' is no different than what the dictionary defines and the english-speaking world recognizes as its actual meaning...'person' is not a word that has essentially changed. Why would this word be chosen if it were not was originally intended by the authors of this creed? And why would it continue to be used if it is not as accurate and correct as possible--in regard to what scripture says?


We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Two major points of conflict between these words and the scripture:

#1 being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made;

God, the Father is not of the same 'substance' as the Son--The Father is pure Spirit and the Son was born as flesh. If 'substance' was not the correct word for the meaning intended--once again, why use it? These were supposedly the men who held the world's spiritual welfare in their hands, or minds, or maybe just their quills. Regardless, this is either a blatant discrepancy or just plain sloppiness. In any case, it should give considerable pause to the would-be seeker of God's truth.

#2 who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,


Revelation 22:9
Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Without jumping ahead to 'is Jesus God' just yet--it is written to worship God. No more, no less, not much further explanation. Why would we need to add? And believe those additions as much, or even more than, what is found simply stated in the bible?

I'm not that big a fan of Wikipedia--but this is an article worth reading. Another good link about creeds.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Jesus did say He was God.


He also said we are all gods. Let me guess, he meant something else when he said that. :shk:



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaimless
I post this question because I do not believe Jesus is god. In fact he said he wasn't over and over in the bible. So what or who is God then, and what was Jesus's real purpose in being here?


Why are you allowing the Bible to influence your concept of god?

Jesus might not have even existed. The evidence in support of a historical Jesus is crap, and Paul makes implicit comments that 'the Christ' is a spiritual being, not a physical fleshy human.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
It seems rather circular to me for one to try use New Testament verses to support Christian concepts. I mean, are you going to find anything in the New Testament that disputes the divinity of the Christian Jesus? The NT was crafted to support the concept of a divine Jesus and, somewhere along the line, become the basis for Christianity. And, there's all this "sin" and "salvation" stuff which is really a man-made concept. It's not a bad thing to recognize some basic "rights and wrongs" but I don't think I need to have any "salvation" as long as I avoid knowingly and willingly causing harm to any other part of G-d's creation.

Round-and-round-and-round-and-round... Seems to me that it would just save everyone a lot of typing and reading if everyone just said whether or not they believe in the divinity of Jesus and that would be that.

Inside this circle that has been fashioned from this method of debate, there are only Christians. Outside this circle, there are a great many of us who believe in G-d but do not accept the divinity of Jesus and do not believe that the NT is much more than just the story of what Christians believe.

In summary, I believe G-d to be much, much bigger than this circle and the G-d that I believe has no use for all this "I'm right, you're wrong" silliness. Everybody has to choose for themselves and no one who has chosen carefully and sincerely can possibly be wrong.

If Christians find their path to G-d through the NT and all the other stuff they believe then, that's wonderful! It just does not follow that this is the only path. It also does not matter to me or to G-d whether you agree with me - we're doing just fine!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join