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.

 

A contradiction in the bible

page: 26
17
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Sorry about that, but I am in the habit of reading the King James.

1 Peter 3:18 (King James Version)

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

This version says by the Spirit.


ζωοποιηθεις δε πνευματι

made alive, or given life by spirit (or "in mind")

meaning- resurrected in spirit form (contrasting the death in flesh)

this clearly shows that there were not 2 facets to jesus' existence. jesus the human died and was resurrected a spirit. NOT jesus the human died, but continued jesus the spirit.


I really do not know what your problem is with. Is it more about not thinking there is a hell, or is it that part of Jesus could appear to part of someone who is dead? Or do you think I believe in a phantom Jesus?
Could be it is all of the above.


i explained the scripture quite clearly. it also is harmonious with eccl 9:5,10


What I was trying to say is that there was not exactly what is normally called hell. It could mean that somehow it was possible, when Jesus was in a purely god mode, while his physical body was dead, to communicate with some consciousness that could be brought into existence by a god.


except eccl 9 clearly says that those consciousness dont exist anymore.


Jesus is God, in some difficult to imagine way. While he was a soul of the human sort, he was restrained in his divine powers and submitted himself to a higher power who he called his Father and God.
Once his human soul was dead, his eternal God identity was able to operate unrestrained. At this point he would have been able to do things that he would have refrained from while alive as a human soul.


so jesus has 2 souls now? human and spiritual?




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

because they believed that jesus never left the spirit realm.
its actually a gnostic teaching that jesus was the spiritual form and that jesus the flesh was like a puppet.
It might be more the other way around. Jesus was the person. What was this spiritual consciousness, that became flesh, was not a fully independent individual person, but a divine attribute of God. Jesus made use of what was available to him, by virtue of having among his own attributes one that was divine.
You might be dealing with your own problem from believing in a person who existed before the incarnation who was already separate and fully independent, which I do not.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


made alive, or given life by spirit (or "in mind")
meaning- resurrected in spirit form (contrasting the death in flesh)
this clearly shows that there were not 2 facets to jesus' existence. jesus the human died and was resurrected a spirit. NOT jesus the human died, but continued jesus the spirit.
Quite a leap in logic, to me.

except eccl 9 clearly says that those consciousness dont exist anymore.
Another rule from the How To Be A God handbook?

so jesus has 2 souls now? human and spiritual?
He is kind of stuck with one soul, for now. There is an eternal nature in the makeup of Jesus from being the Word made flesh.If we die, our spirit gets sucked back into the oneness of where it came. When Jesus died, his spirit was of a higher order, that it did not go into the same place, but could have remained semi-autonomous, as that was in its original nature to be.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It might be more the other way around. Jesus was the person. What was this spiritual consciousness, that became flesh, was not a fully independent individual person, but a divine attribute of God. Jesus made use of what was available to him, by virtue of having among his own attributes one that was divine.


i ask again, where are you getting this from scripturally?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

made alive, or given life by spirit (or "in mind")
meaning- resurrected in spirit form (contrasting the death in flesh)
this clearly shows that there were not 2 facets to jesus' existence. jesus the human died and was resurrected a spirit. NOT jesus the human died, but continued jesus the spirit.
Quite a leap in logic, to me.


my brain wants to explode when i hear you say things like this. how? how is this a leap of logic.

died in the flesh, made alive by spirit - how does this phrase possibly NOT refer to a resurrection?!



except eccl 9 clearly says that those consciousness dont exist anymore.
Another rule from the How To Be A God handbook?


your not even making any sense anymore.

what does eccl 9 have to do with your handbook?



so jesus has 2 souls now? human and spiritual?
He is kind of stuck with one soul, for now. There is an eternal nature in the makeup of Jesus from being the Word made flesh.If we die, our spirit gets sucked back into the oneness of where it came. When Jesus died, his spirit was of a higher order, that it did not go into the same place, but could have remained semi-autonomous, as that was in its original nature to be.


again... show me the scripture.

what is the point of studying god if you refuse to use his word?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

i ask again, where are you getting this from scripturally?
There is no physical analog to explain the spiritual in human terms .
What I said about Jesus can not be true. I am trying to word it in such a way to make it not not true. If the Scripture does not say it is not true, then I feel I can try that. I guess I am creating anti-scripture, that would be if I claimed any of my attempts to be believable.
So I am not stating facts, just throwing out invented metaphors. Just pretend it is a nice little piece of poetry and you can take it for whatever you want. There is no literal meaning to it.

How do you support your claims? If Jesus, meaning whoever he was before the incarnation, was a created being and not divine, how did he have power to become flesh? Only God could do that. Created beings do not have power to re-create themselves.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

your not even making any sense anymore.
what does eccl 9 have to do with your handbook?
There is no such thing as a How To Be A God handbook, that is my point. God does not plan to bring a deceased person to a conscious state to talk to them and say, "I had better take a look at my handbook to see if I am allowed to do that".
"jesus the human died and was resurrected a spirit." I am guessing this is a dogma that you subscribe to. You may wish this to be a true statement, but in my opinion it is a leap in logic. You present evidince for your view, but it is not something instantly apparent to the casual reader. I suppose I will have to study it for a while to see if it is logical.

As a sidenote: Mostly I am using logic to make these apparently bold statements about Jesus. If scripture can make two or three solid starting points, you can work from there to make some determinations. But this is not math, so whatever my results are, they can never be true.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
What I said about Jesus can not be true. I am trying to word it in such a way to make it not not true. If the Scripture does not say it is not true, then I feel I can try that. I guess I am creating anti-scripture, that would be if I claimed any of my attempts to be believable.
So I am not stating facts, just throwing out invented metaphors. Just pretend it is a nice little piece of poetry and you can take it for whatever you want. There is no literal meaning to it.


for the past 2 weeks you have been making less and less sense. is everything ok?


How do you support your claims? If Jesus, meaning whoever he was before the incarnation, was a created being and not divine, how did he have power to become flesh? Only God could do that. Created beings do not have power to re-create themselves.


good question. why does the statement "became flesh" automatically mean that jesus did this to himself?

even if god made jesus into flesh, it can still be said that jesus "became flesh". why are you assuming otherwise?

when i was conceived, i became alive. does this automatically mean that i am responsible for my own existence?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
"jesus the human died and was resurrected a spirit." I am guessing this is a dogma that you subscribe to. You may wish this to be a true statement, but in my opinion it is a leap in logic. You present evidince for your view, but it is not something instantly apparent to the casual reader. I suppose I will have to study it for a while to see if it is logical.


so the bible says that jesus was dead, then he was resurrected a spirit. so me saying that jesus died and was resurrected a spirit is a leap of logic?

leap of logic on what planet?


But this is not math, so whatever my results are, they can never be true.


ummm ok...


[edit on 30-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
As a Mormon, I believe the 'Trinity' is three separate beings... but then again, most don't consider us Christian, so..



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


for the past 2 weeks you have been making less and less sense. is everything ok?
I could never question your power of perception or your degree of intelligence.
OK, busted. There is something wrong, or not "ok", to quote you.
Two weeks ago, one of my cousins moved in with me. So, instead of just writing a bunch of stuff that seems like it is probably right, I can sit their and have a live conversation with someone with the same basic religious background. After discussing these edgy topics at length, day after day, I have to realize that it is not possible to adequately describe these concepts to the point that you can sit back and pat yourself on the back and say, "Yes, I really nailed it this time."
I have to look at him closely and ask him if he understands any of what I just said. He will say yes, but during the next conversation, I realize that he really had not. So, I have this perspective that I have to slowly work around the edges but let it be known that I have not made it to the center yet and might not ever.
Real fun (not) when we go fishing and the guy has a few beers in him and when I bring up the topic with another cousin, my room mate starts yelling out that it is impossible to ever understand. So much for all my effort.

why does the statement "became flesh" automatically mean that jesus did this to himself?
It might not be automatic. I do think it is a legitimate question, though. I had always understood it, in my own mind, to mean that the Word did it itself. It would seem a little of a stretch to think otherwise, but that is me. I would imagine that if someone else had done it, it would have been worded differently. Like, "And God caused this Word that was with Him and was the same as Him to become flesh." That would make them separate to a greater degree than what would seem to be implied by the current wording.

when i was conceived, i became alive. does this automatically mean that i am responsible for my own existence?
Maybe if you were a conscious entity before you were born and made the decision to do it. I do not think we are, and that might be part of what makes Jesus special. He chose to be here and understood the possible consequences. But, to further exhibit my new found insanity, Jesus says he was sent, so that choice may have been to submit, and not so much about the particulars of that that submission would involve. I would like to think it is both, because both sides are presented, if you read John and you then read the speech by Peter in Acts. Peter mentions a council, which I would imagine included the pre-incarnation Jesus.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

so the bible says that jesus was dead, then he was resurrected a spirit. so me saying that jesus died and was resurrected a spirit is a leap of logic?
leap of logic on what planet?
I was saying my Bible does not read like that. It could be that the Greek can be interpreted that way. Again, this looks like a dogma issue to me. There may be a wealth of examinational literature on it in your circles, made to support a certain dogma, but is not something I have ever read.
The way I was taught about the risen Jesus was, yes, he had the power to walk through walls but he could do the same sort of thing before that. Like when the Jews pushed him up on a cliff to throw him off, he passed right through the crowd and escaped.
Jesus made a point of assuring his disciples he was not a spirit. He said, see, I am eating food, so obviously I am not a ghost. Touch me and feel me and see I am a flesh and blood man.
I suspect that you want him to be razed as a different sort of being than what he was previously, in his earthly form, so that he can go straight up into heaven as such without having to undergo any further transformation. He can be this mythical "Spirit Body", much like he was before the incarnation.
According to the way I was taught, he rose into heaven in a glorified state, but that can be because God glorified him, just like Jesus asked Him to, before the crucifixion. He attained a higher status by virtue of his accomplishment and is deserving of praise.



[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It might not be automatic. I do think it is a legitimate question, though. I had always understood it, in my own mind, to mean that the Word did it itself. It would seem a little of a stretch to think otherwise, but that is me. I would imagine that if someone else had done it, it would have been worded differently. Like, "And God caused this Word that was with Him and was the same as Him to become flesh." That would make them separate to a greater degree than what would seem to be implied by the current wording.


it doesnt say that but it does say....

john 5:[30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

your trying to make jesus and god one thing, but it doesnt work when compared to the scriptures.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
There may be a wealth of examinational literature on it in your circles, made to support a certain dogma, but is not something I have ever read.


1 cor 15: [35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
[36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
[37] And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
[38] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
[40] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
[41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
[46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
[47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
[48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
[49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

both paul and peter are in full agreement. jesus was resurrected into a spirit form



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Here is what Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says about that:
"the Lord--omitted in the oldest manuscripts and versions.
from heaven--(@Joh 3:13,31).Humanity in Christ is generic. In Him man is impersonated in his true ideal as God originally designed him. Christ is the representative man, the federal head of redeemed man."
Paul is saying that he is the restoration of man, not that there is some new man that never existed before. (such as a "spirit body" man)


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
[

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

from heaven--(@Joh 3:13,31).Humanity in Christ is generic. In Him man is impersonated in his true ideal as God originally designed him. Christ is the representative man, the federal head of redeemed man."
Paul is saying that he is the restoration of man, not that there is some new man that never existed before. (such as a "spirit body" man)


classic example of you taking something simple, and then confusing it.

[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;

quoting genesis. talking about literally adam.

the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

speaking about jesus. the "corresponding ransom" being resurrected as a spirit.

[47] The first man is of the earth, earthy:

adam was made from the dust. literally from the earth

the second man is the Lord from heaven.

you are correct, "lord" wasnt in this verse, but it doesnt matter. jesus was a spirit before being sent to earth.

why was paul making this comparison?

[35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

people were asking how those with a heaven calling will be resurrected if their body decays and disappears after they die.

paul was drawing a direct comparison to jesus' resurrection and saying in effect "that is how our resurrection will be too"

jesus was flesh and died. he was resurrected a spirit creature. those who take part of the first resurrection will have the same.

you are avoiding the point. jesus was not a spiritual facet of god. part of him was not in heaven while he was on earth. jesus died and then returned to heaven.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Hi miriam.
I need your help on something here


Question:
1. Was Adam and Eve made into a full grown man and woman without a childhood?

How can this be explained?

This might seam like a silly question, but i see it as i read it. I am still trying to understand Moses story about Gods creation.

Question 2.

God said lets make man in our image. Do you agree that we dont have a clue of what image that is. Because we are not just made in the image of God but in the image of the others as well. But we don't know who the others are. Or do we?

What image did God want us to imagine?
The image thing seams like a very important ID for us compared to everything else that God created.


Question 3.

I would like to think that God is pure energy. But then the Bible tells us that God never changes. But we know from science that energy changes into a new finite energy all the time.

My question is what is God? I know its a name of a source but what is the source?

How can that source be explained scientifically so we all know what we are talking about.

Ops i forgot a question.

If God is pure energy. How could God have walked in the Garden of Eden alongside of Adam and Eve. Without them dieing?






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

why was paul making this comparison?
I had to get into Paul's head a while back on a Christian forum because of these people who were making a big deal out of the "Spiritual Law". They were making arguments that there was this new law that did not previously exist, and that the Ten Commandments were in the trash can.
I had to do a close study of Paul and how he meant different things when he used words like flesh and spirit and law. I concluded that Paul meant there was a consciousness of the Law that was from a Spiritual source and not from the flesh.
I could adapt that principal to your spiritual man. Jesus was not something that was of a fleshly source but a Spiritual source and needs to be understood in a way that we only can through Spiritual discernment that only God can give us.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by agoodshot
many things do not make sense to men


so you're ADMITTING that it's nonsensical.
i caught you doing it, don't act like you didn't

if it doesn't make sense to men (and women i'll assume are included in this as well) then it doesn't make sense. we have no other standard of sense to look to.


Look up quantum entanglement. Explain that to me. If it doesn't make sense, come back and tell me that it doesn't exist due to your lack of understanding and explain to me why I would believe you that it doesn't exist due to lack of making sense to man. Some things are beyond our understanding, and some people get a glimpse of it.

Deny ignorance



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Question:
1. Was Adam and Eve made into a full grown man and woman without a childhood?

How can this be explained?

This might seam like a silly question, but i see it as i read it. I am still trying to understand Moses story about Gods creation.


would they need to be created as children?

by every account, it seems they were created in mature form.


Question 2.

God said lets make man in our image. Do you agree that we dont have a clue of what image that is.


no i dont agree.

statements like god is love are only understandable because man was made in god image. its because of this that we have a sense of justice, etc etc


Because we are not just made in the image of God but in the image of the others as well. But we don't know who the others are. Or do we?

What image did God want us to imagine?
The image thing seams like a very important ID for us compared to everything else that God created.


not sure i understand.


Question 3.

I would like to think that God is pure energy. But then the Bible tells us that God never changes. But we know from science that energy changes into a new finite energy all the time.

My question is what is God? I know its a name of a source but what is the source?

How can that source be explained scientifically so we all know what we are talking about.

Ops i forgot a question.

If God is pure energy. How could God have walked in the Garden of Eden alongside of Adam and Eve. Without them dieing?


god is not pure energy. god is a spirit. (john 4:24)

god has infinite power, (isa 40:26) but that doesnt mean that we can assume he IS power.

as for him walking in the garden ---

the apostle john very specifically says that no man has seen god.

this likely means that if there was some sort of visual representation of god that adam and eve saw, likely it was a representation, or another angel speaking for god.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join