Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by adjensen
No, both religion and logic tells us that there is only one path to the truth, and many paths that lead away from it.

My friend, could you expound on what this Truth is that is only achievable by one path? What is it?

Whatever it is. Absolute theological truth.

My friend, does Christianity teach that God makes mistakes? If not, who are we to say we are not perfect, God created us did he not?

No, it does not teach that God makes mistakes. Our imperfections are our behaviours, which are the result of choices that we make, as a result of the existence of free will. We are responsible for the choices that we make, we can't just put them off on God with a "you should have made me better."

Originally posted by adjensenHowever, in the face of that downfall, God offers us his company through an act of grace -- atonement and sacrifice on the part of Christ, who was, of course, God. If you accept this grace, it is yours. If you do not, you reject the method by which God offers to be reconciled to you.

Where is the Christian God? I thought he was all around us, within us, and without?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you asking if Christianity or my personal beliefs are in accordance with Pantheism? If so, no.

Originally posted by adjensen
]Once you accept Christ's two commandments of Love God and love everyone else, which he explicitly says are what are necessary for eternal life,

If these are Christs two commandments, why do you add to them the below conditions?

Originally posted by adjensen
and you accept the salvation he offers, the means by which you accept God and he accepts you, that's about it.

Because that is what Christ taught. I'm not a big fan of quoting scripture, but a couple of relevant passages are John 14:6, Mark 8:31 and Luke 10:25-37

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Things are simple.

People live more than one life; but only very few people have memories of previous lives; and even fewer have received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation; which is what is meant by the phrase "the path is narrow".

There is absolutely no support for this in Christian scripture, barring those who take an eisegesis view of the text (I've talked with a number of ATS, and they tend to argue from non-canonical literature, but still try to claim things like "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ" indicate support of reincarnation.)

John the Baptist, a reincarnation of Elijah? By the Old Testament, Elijah didn't die, so how could he be reincarnated? And John is asked directly in John 1:21 whether he is Elijah or the Prophet and he flat out says "no."

Like the Christian Gnostics, reincarnation is directly counter to both Judaism and Christianity, so attempts to incorporate the two will always fail, apart from those who simply wish it to be true, whether it is or not, and whether it makes sense or not.

Originally posted by adjensen

and you accept the salvation he offers, the means by which you accept God and he accepts you, that's about it.

Because that is what Christ taught.

Jesus did not teach any blood-thirsty doctrine of "vicarious atonement" for sin.

Any salvation that Jesus offered was salvation through the Knowledge of Truth rather than a belief in the doctrines of the witless religious 'authorities' who had "hidden the keys of Knowledge" like a "dog in a manger".

That pagan-demonic doctrine was taught by Paul to cover up for the fact that Jesus was murdered because he taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'; a Doctrine which threatened the power, the wealth and the pride of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Michael

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Jesus Christ - Was the Son of God, so are we by our divine spirit the spark of life, Was the Son of Man, as are we by our physical birth from our parents. He was NOT God, but understood the divine will of God better than any Man in the past. His death on the cross was a lesson to Man on the depths of love we should share for each other.

If he was not God, then he was a liar and blasphemer of the worst sort for claiming to forgive sins, mediate between the Father and man, and not rebuking anyone who implied that he was God. As a faithful Jew, it was a horrible sin to even listen to such statements, much less make them. By the word of the Bible, if he was not God, then he deserved death, by the Jewish law, if nothing else. Christ never repudiated Judaism, so he was subject to the law, like every other Jew.

Do you believe that Jesus deserved to die, then?

If you dismiss claims in the Bible that Christ was God, why do you accept any of it? Do you pick the things you like and write off the bits you don't as some sort of conspiracy?

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen

and you accept the salvation he offers, the means by which you accept God and he accepts you, that's about it.

Because that is what Christ taught.

Jesus did not teach any blood-thirsty doctrine of "vicarious atonement" for sin.

Any salvation that Jesus offered was salvation through the Knowledge of Truth rather than a belief in the doctrines of the witless religious 'authorities' who had "hidden the keys of Knowledge" like a "dog in a manger".

That pagan-demonic doctrine was taught by Paul to cover up for the fact that Jesus was murdered because he taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'; a Doctrine which threatened the power, the wealth and the pride of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Michael

So your belief is that God is an elitist, who only grants salvation to those clever enough to work it out? And that he is so weak that he allowed his messenger to be killed without accomplishing anything, and have his message lost by the wiles of man until we were lucky enough to recover the Gnostic texts?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Things are simple.

People live more than one life; but only very few people have memories of previous lives; and even fewer have received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation; which is what is meant by the phrase "the path is narrow".

There is absolutely no support for this in Christian scripture,

First of all, as Morpheus says in The Matrix, "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

Secondly, you don't even know the path.

How much less are you capable of walking the path.

You have never received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation, as cryptically described in Genesis 2:7.

Thus, you have no real Knowledge of anything that Jesus was talking about.

All you have is opinions, thoughts and speculations that you have read in a book some place or have been told by others; people who, by the way, are very handsomely rewarded for the lies they tell because those lies are, of course, quite pleasurable whereas Truth is offensive. Without those books and thoughts you have been told by others, you would have nothing to say. All you do is regurgitate what someone else has written or said.

I did not use the word "reincarnation".

The term is 'Rebirth', for reasons which, clearly, you would not understand in the first place.

Michael

Originally posted by adjensen
Whatever it is. Absolute theological truth.

My friend, your religion is your vessel of Truth, you claim it is the only path to this truth, yet you do not know what this truth is?

Originally posted by adjensenNo, it does not teach that God makes mistakes. Our imperfections are our behaviours, which are the result of choices that we make, as a result of the existence of free will. We are responsible for the choices that we make, we can't just put them off on God with a "you should have made me better."

But if God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-benevolent, then it stands to reason that he knew what we would do when he created us, and not capable of mistakes, created us exactly how he wanted us, behavior included. Does it not?

Originally posted by adjensenWhat does that have to do with anything? Are you asking if Christianity or my personal beliefs are in accordance with Pantheism? If so, no.

I am sorry my friend, I'll try to rephrase the question. Where do you believe God resides?

Originally posted by adjensenBecause that is what Christ taught. I'm not a big fan of quoting scripture, but a couple of relevant passages are John 14:6, Mark 8:31 and Luke 10:25-37

I understand, I do not like to quote the Bible either.

I know this conflicts with your view, but I will add it to the discussion for others to draw from.

The Bible was compiled by order of the Roman Empire and is a mix of Judaism and Christs teachings, wrapped in Pagan tradition. The reason for it being put together was to unite an Empire which had many cults, sects, and beliefs. The early Christians were a particular problem because the faith was spreading and Rome could not stamp them out. They were imprisoned, tortured, and put to death. Despite this, they grew in numbers because they practised a peaceful loving existence and were resistant to Imperial Rule. So, Rome had to conquer them from within. To do this, they subverted the cult by bringing Christs teachings under the domain of the Empire itself. Christ took on a God figure, was dressed in the trappings of other Roman and Egyptian Gods, and his teachings were carefully doctored to appeal to those Christians who already knew Christs teachings, and to those Romans who insisted on a more Pagan route. It was basically just a power grab by the Empire.

Jesus taught by works (caring for the power, weak, and widowed), and by speech. He never put anything to writing, because he knew that doing so lends to corruption. Did he not regularly put down Pharisees and scribes? Scribes are those who put religious doctrine to paper and Pharisees are priests.

This is all in the new testament, it has just been danced around. Atheists are quick to pick out the contradictions and use them as disproof against Christ's teachings, but it simply shows Christs teachings were subverted.

But, Don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself and see if you do not come to the same conclusions asking yourself, why would an Empire who was against these teachings, allow them to be put into writing and adopted by the Empire itself? Hhhmmm

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Jesus Christ - Was the Son of God, so are we by our divine spirit the spark of life, Was the Son of Man, as are we by our physical birth from our parents. He was NOT God, but understood the divine will of God better than any Man in the past. His death on the cross was a lesson to Man on the depths of love we should share for each other.

If he was not God, then he was a liar and blasphemer of the worst sort for claiming to forgive sins, mediate between the Father and man...

Maybe you should read the Gospels just once......for kicks.

In his reply to the Sadducees in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says that "the children of the resurrection are sons of God."

He uses the term in the plural, not the singular.

The "children of the resurrection" are those who have, themselves, received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation.

They know that they were Created by God, not because they read it in some book, not because that is what they have been told by others; but because they remember.

That is what the Revelation is: of the Memory of the Creation.

Just like Moses received.

Secondly, in the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH) of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by Jesus, Jesus specifically denies that there can be any mediator at all between man and God...

Which is one of the fundamental reasons for the Dead Sea Scrolls scandal: distract people from the Teaching conveyed in the Thanksgiving Hymns and that they were written by Jesus.

Michael

Originally posted by adjensen
If he was not God, then he was a liar and blasphemer of the worst sort for claiming to forgive sins, mediate between the Father and man, and not rebuking anyone who implied that he was God. As a faithful Jew, it was a horrible sin to even listen to such statements, much less make them. By the word of the Bible, if he was not God, then he deserved death, by the Jewish law, if nothing else. Christ never repudiated Judaism, so he was subject to the law, like every other Jew.

No my friend, Christ was not a liar. He never wrote a single scrap of paper or parchment in the Bible. He was lied about by the authors, under the command of the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by adjensen
Do you believe that Jesus deserved to die, then?

No he did not deserve to die. I think it is sad that he had to. He had thousands of followers at the time of his death and they did not love him enough to circle around him so the Romans would have had to slaughter them all to get to him? He shed his blood as a lesson to us all on what kind of love we should have for each other. He did it because his followers would not do it for him. Sure, they would kill for him, but not die for him without shedding their enemies blood.

Originally posted by adjensenIf you dismiss claims in the Bible that Christ was God, why do you accept any of it? Do you pick the things you like and write off the bits you don't as some sort of conspiracy?

I pick the stories of his life that matched his lessons. Jesus NEVER said he was God. He said he was the way, in other words, how he lived his life is how you come to understand God, but he never said directly not once, I AM GOD. He said often, I am the Son of God, and I am the Son of Man.

I accept his life lesson as the lesson of how we all should live. His life has so touched me that I do LOVE all, and if I needed to, I would die for anyone that they not suffer one ounce. I was a Marine. I swore to give my life for a whole lot less already. Now it is sworn to live as Christ did, because he is my Brother, and I love him.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Rustami
John-
I and the Father are one.

God is all around us and within us. He is ALL. Therefore, God is within us ALL, Jesus included. We are all One with the Father, but we are not individually the Father.

Originally posted by Rustami
Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

I alluded to this one a few posts back. We were all created in the beginning. God created everything in the beginning, the past, present, and future. We were all created before we were birn for we all come form the divine spirit of God, which pre-dates creation. Shoot, Before Adam was created, I AM.

Originally posted by RustamiDon't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Yep, the same for us all.

Originally posted by Rustami
Daniel-He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

I can only hope this comes to pass. That Jesus' wisdom is realised and we start treating each other like Brothers and Sisters of God. That we recognise our Soveriegn Kingdoms, our free will and divine soul. I truly hope this comes to pass.

It will if we follow Jesus' ONLY 2 commandments.

Love God (This whole existance) with all of your heart, and love your neighbor (EVERYONE outside of your body) as your self.

Originally posted by Rustami
Revelation-
And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

Meh, I don't pay any mind at all to Revelation. What better way to keep people submissive than to have them wait on someone else to come save them rather than do what needs to be done to save themselves.

These are just my views my friend. If your interpretation brings you closer to your fellow man and following Christs commandments, by all means don't let my view get in the way. I just love to love.

Judge not, Love all, Be at peace

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by adjensen
Whatever it is. Absolute theological truth.

My friend, your religion is your vessel of Truth, you claim it is the only path to this truth, yet you do not know what this truth is?

Of course not, and neither do you. (You will most likely reply with another "oh no, brother, I do know the truth," but that either means that you are delusional, you mistake conjecture for truth, or you are a liar.) God in incomprehensible, as we now are, so the absolute truth will not, cannot, be know within the current reality.

But if God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-benevolent, then it stands to reason that he knew what we would do when he created us, and not capable of mistakes, created us exactly how he wanted us, behavior included. Does it not?

Nope. Unless you are a Calvinist (or something similar,) this is not an accurate depiction of God.

The Bible was compiled by order of the Roman Empire and is a mix of Judaism and Christs teachings, wrapped in Pagan tradition.

This is an invalid statement -- there are historical documents which demonstrate that the New Testament had been defined as canon more than a century prior to the conversion of Constantine. It is a common misconception that the Council of Nicaea codified the books of the Bible, but this is not true. Thank Dan Brown for that nonsense. Most of the books of the New Testament were written in the time of the persecution of the church, and much in the text refers to it. Your belief that the text was created by the very forces that the text decries is nonsensical.

The Roman government had a fine "cult of personality" going for them, they were tolerant of minor religions (so long as they continued to view the Emperor as a deity, though a specific exemption was made for the Jews, who put up a pretty big fight to earn it,) and they had zero reason to adopt a minor sect of Judaism, a faith they nearly destroyed in 70AD, apart from Constantine's "vision" and conversion, if one believes that.

Jesus taught by works (caring for the power, weak, and widowed), and by speech. He never put anything to writing, because he knew that doing so lends to corruption. Did he not regularly put down Pharisees and scribes? Scribes are those who put religious doctrine to paper and Pharisees are priests.

If you read the texts, Jesus' beef with the Pharisees has nothing to do with the law, but their skewed interpretation of the law, and their practice of it. He didn't condemn prayer, he condemned the public prayer of the Pharisees that was intended to draw the praise of others, not the praise of God. He didn't condemn alms, he praised the widow who gave in her need, and suggested that the best way to give was to do so secretly, unlike the Pharisees, who gave so that others would see them and be impressed.

The chances that anything Christ taught, did or said would survive beyond two or three generations is pretty slim unless someone wrote it down, so it is ridiculous to say that he didn't write anything down because he was afraid it would be corrupted. Which is more likely to be misunderstood, mistaken or corrupted -- something which is written down? Or an oral tradition?

To the OP: this is a prime example of the dangers of dismissing religion and theology and relying on a faith basis alone. This fellow here has turned historical and Biblical ignorance into a belief that is invalid. His belief that the Romans "invented Christianity" is bourn out by neither historical or documentary proof. There is blind belief, which both you and I (and, I suspect, IAMIAM) decry, but there is also delusional belief, where one begins with a premise, and then builds up a body of evidence to support it, ignoring or casting aside anything that disputes it. In this case, pretty much the whole of Christian thought and history.

Earlier, I suggested that the Gnostic fellow was guilty of taking an eisegesis approach to the Bible in seeking support for reincarnation (sorry, "rebirth") and this is another example. There are two approaches to scriptural interpretation -- exegesis, which is reading the text to find support or consistency with the rest of the text, and eisegesis, which is reading the text in order to find support for ideas outside of the text.

The problem is that support can be found in the Bible for pretty much anything that you want. Want to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK? That the moon landing was faked? That 9/11 was faked? There's something in the Bible that someone can twist into giving your idea support.

Doesn't mean it's the truth, though.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Maybe you should read the Gospels just once......for kicks.

Oooh. An insult! The dialogue deepens! lol. Sorry, Michael, but I'm quite familiar with the Gospels.

In his reply to the Sadducees in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says that "the children of the resurrection are sons of God."

He uses the term in the plural, not the singular.

So what? We're children of God. Nothing mystical or insightful about that.

Christ WAS God. He was the son, but he IS God. That is the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Secondly, in the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH) of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by Jesus, Jesus specifically denies that there can be any mediator at all between man and God...

What on Earth leads you to believe that the Thanksgiving Hymns were written by Jesus? Your thread about it on here presents speculation and interpretation as fact and has no support other than yourself, while the common supposition that the Teacher of Righteousness is the author is far more likely.

That said, I agree that there is no mediator between man and God, because Christian theology states that no man can come to the Father, save through the Son, and both, as noted above, are God.

Originally posted by Rustami
If I'm(godly men's words not my own that were eye witnesses and personally discipled/taught) trying to show you the Way and the Truth am I loving you?

If I come to show you the way and divert you off your chosen path, am I loving you?

Who knows the way for absolute certain? My friend I tell you we all walk the way. Some take a round about course through the wilderness, but to the Father we all go. Loving is sharing. If your way is righteous, others will follow. Loving is accepting people as they are. How much pain has this world seen because we judge each other. Is this love? No.

Originally posted by Rustami
how is one sins forgiven?

God does the judging and each will be judged as they have judged. Judgement is self fulfilling.

My friend, I do not do Bible quotes. I prefer to hear what comes from a man's own heart, his own interpretation of those quotes. Please do not think I mean disrespect by avoiding them.

Originally posted by Rustami
if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

My friend, Christians consider me a heretic. And, the label Christian serves as a divider among men. I will have none of it. My beliefs are my own. I have God in my heart, the teachings of Jesus as my guide, and love for all mankind. No sect do I love more than the next.

Originally posted by Rustami
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I believe the lesson taught by his works, his life, and his death were for my sake in these times. I also absolutely believe he was chosen at the beginning of the world to do what he did. So was I, so was you.

Originally posted by Rustami
whose your neighbor?

Every Man outside myself.

Judge Not, Love all, be at peace

With Love,

Yoru Brother

Originally posted by adjensen
Of course not, and neither do you. (You will most likely reply with another "oh no, brother, I do know the truth," but that either means that you are delusional, you mistake conjecture for truth, or you are a liar.) God in incomprehensible, as we now are, so the absolute truth will not, cannot, be know within the current reality.

Yes, my friend, I do know MY truth. I have been sharing it with you. I do not know THE Truth, that is beyond one man. We all have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a mind to comprehend this creation. Within us ALL is a divine spark, a connection to our Creator. Thus, we ALL have a bit of the truth inside. By sharing, we come to know the whole Truth, that much better.

Judge not my friend!

Originally posted by adjensen
this is not an accurate depiction of God.

No you are wrong. You can not tell me how I see God. You do not have my mind or have seen through my eyes. To tell me I am wrong is to reveal you are a fool. All that you CAN do is share how you perceive God.
So, how do YOU depict God.

Originally posted by adjensenThis is an invalid statement -- there are historical documents which demonstrate that the New Testament had been defined as canon more than a century prior to the conversion of Constantine.

I did not say some of the books of the New Testament were compiled by Rome. I said the Bible was compiled by Rome.

Originally posted by adjensenThe Roman government had a fine "cult of personality" going for them, they were tolerant of minor religions (so long as they continued to view the Emperor as a deity, though a specific exemption was made for the Jews, who put up a pretty big fight to earn it,) and they had zero reason to adopt a minor sect of Judaism, a faith they nearly destroyed in 70AD, apart from Constantine's "vision" and conversion, if one believes that.

Really? You do not think that a cult which taught that each Man was King, Priest, Prophet unto themselves were a threat to the Empire? A cult that would not fight back, but humbly submitted to death rather than toss their beliefs? Then why do you suppose Rome tried to stamp it out?

Originally posted by adjensenIf you read the texts, Jesus' beef with the Pharisees has nothing to do with the law, but their skewed interpretation of the law, and their practice of it. He didn't condemn prayer, he condemned the public prayer of the Pharisees that was intended to draw the praise of others, not the praise of God. He didn't condemn alms, he praised the widow who gave in her need, and suggested that the best way to give was to do so secretly, unlike the Pharisees, who gave so that others would see them and be impressed.

I agree.

Originally posted by adjensenThe chances that anything Christ taught, did or said would survive beyond two or three generations is pretty slim unless someone wrote it down, so it is ridiculous to say that he didn't write anything down because he was afraid it would be corrupted. Which is more likely to be misunderstood, mistaken or corrupted -- something which is written down? Or an oral tradition?

Look within, the kingdom of heaven is in you. When your message is the truth is within all of us, your damn skippy he knew someone would want to take that power back from the people by corrupting his message.

His only commandment was to Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. All else was commentary, an exemplification of the message. Now how can you claim to love someone, then tell them "Oh by the way, you have to believe in my God first, and accept his sacrifice, and come to his church."

Hypocrite.

Originally posted by adjensenEarlier, I suggested that the Gnostic fellow was guilty of taking an eisegesis approach to the Bible in seeking support for reincarnation (sorry, "rebirth") and this is another example. There are two approaches to scriptural interpretation -- exegesis, which is reading the text to find support or consistency with the rest of the text, and eisegesis, which is reading the text in order to find support for ideas outside of the text.

You judge your fellow Brethren for sharing their truth, yet you have no truth of your own to share?

It is you who should be partaking my friend.

Originally posted by adjensen
Doesn't mean it's the truth, though.[

How would you know? You already said you do not know what is truth? It is impossible for you to know by your own words!

Interesting.

You judge others for walking the wrong path while walking blindly down your own. As you judge others a fool, I must declare the fool has revealed itself.

I love you my friend, but you make it very hard to understand in matters of God, the Spirit, and Love.

I hope you find your truth soon.

Judge not, love all, be at peace

With Love,

Your Brother