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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quite a leap in logic, to me.
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.
Another rule from the How To Be A God handbook?
except eccl 9 clearly says that those consciousness dont exist anymore.
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.
so jesus has 2 souls now? human and spiritual?
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.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Quite a leap in logic, to me.
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.
Another rule from the How To Be A God handbook?
except eccl 9 clearly says that those consciousness dont exist anymore.
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.
so jesus has 2 souls now? human and spiritual?
There is no physical analog to explain the spiritual in human terms .
i ask again, where are you getting this from scripturally?
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".
your not even making any sense anymore.
what does eccl 9 have to do with your handbook?
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.
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.
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.
But this is not math, so whatever my results are, they can never be true.
I could never question your power of perception or your degree of intelligence.
for the past 2 weeks you have been making less and less sense. is everything ok?
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.
why does the statement "became flesh" automatically mean that jesus did this to himself?
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.
when i was conceived, i became alive. does this automatically mean that i am responsible for my own existence?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Here is what Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says about that:
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
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)
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.
why was paul making this comparison?
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.
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.
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?