If Jesus was God, why did he pray to himself?

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




That's just ordinary accepted fact


More like ordinary accepted view. Just because the majority of people who believe in Jesus believes him to be a god/God it doesn't mean it's true. You can't simply disregard the possibility that these people, from the time of the first bishops up to now, have been made to believe a lie. As for proofs, nobody will be able to present irrefutable ones, and even if someone does, it is still entirely up to a person if he will simply disregard it or put it under consideration.

"When the original Apostles died, the leadership of the Church was taken over by local pastors known as bishops. Under them were ministers of lower rank, known as presbyters and deacons. The Church organized the area of the Roman Empire into provinces. The bishops at the head of the Christian communities in the large cities such as Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage ranked highest." (The New Book of knowledge, vol.3, pp.280-281)

"At first the history of the Roman Church is identical with the history of Christian truth. But unhappily there came a time when streams of poison began to flow from the once pure fountain." (The Worlds Great Events, vol.2, pp.163-164)

"For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul." (The Story of the Christian Church, p.41)

When the apostles died, it seems these apostolic fathers started formulating unscriptural dogmas. But even at the time of the apostle Paul, the same people were already straying from the teachings of the apostles; some profess that they follow the view of a particular apostle, some follow the teaching of another, when in fact the teaching of the apostles did not differ from one another! Maybe it all started by someone asking the question: who's better? It is a biblical fact that these factions are already at work even at the time of apostle Paul's ministry:

"For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of
the circumcision group." (Titus 1:10)

"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”;another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:10, 12)

And when the apostles died, who assumed ministry of the church? These very same people did. And the situation was further aggravated by the persecutions of the Roman Empire:



History of the persecutions

The first documentable Empire-wide persecution took place under Maximinus Thrax, though only the clergy were sought out. Christian sources aver that a decree was issued requiring public sacrifice, a formality equivalent to a testimonial of allegiance to the Emperor and the established order. Decius authorized roving commissions visiting the cities and villages to supervise the execution of the sacrifices and to deliver written certificates to all citizens who performed them. Christians were often given opportunities to avoid further punishment by publicly offering sacrifices or burning incense to Roman gods, and were accused by the Romans of impiety when they refused. Refusal was punished by arrest, imprisonment, torture, and executions. Christians fled to safe havens in the countryside and some purchased their certificates, called libelli. Several councils held at Carthage debated the extent to which the community should accept these lapsed Christians. The persecutions culminated with Diocletian and Galerius at the end of the third and beginning of the 4th century. Their persecution, considered the largest, was to be the last major Roman Pagan persecution, as Constantine I soon came into power and in 313 legalized Christianity. It was not until Theodosius I in the latter 4th century, however, that Christianity would become the official religion of the Roman Empire. en.wikipedia.org...


Before Constantine legalized Christianity, they were already forced to practice paganism otherwise they were tortured and killed. Some purchased their certificates while some remained adamant and fled to safe havens. But without the guidance of a centralized administration, what do you think happened to those who fled and hid in caves? And concerning those "legalized Christians", well, Constantine integrated their religion into his empire further cementing their rise to power. But what pushed Constantine to issue this decree? Because he saw a vision of the cross in the sky before he went to battle? I don't think so.

These are some of the things we should consider before concluding that the concept of Jesus divinity is something the dates back to the time of the apostles.





What you are calling my paranoia could be resolved by you stating that in fact you do not support the modern state of Israel


I do not, in any way, support the modern state of Israel. Their affairs mean nothing to me. There. Hope that gives you some peace of mind.




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bijouramov
 


what about this-
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.-Rev12 (the invisible King)

and this made me think of your three issue-

For this Melchisedec..first being by interpretation King of righteousness(1), and after that also King of Salem(2), which is, King of peace(3); Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.-Heb7
edit on 10-12-2010 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bijouramov
 

Hope that gives you some peace of mind.
I don't know why you couldn't have said that before, or not to be so specific, say something like, I am not a follower of John Hagee and don't get my ideas about Jesus from him.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I said it in so many different ways, friend. Just not exactly the way you expected me to. Anyway, let's just put that thing behind us.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



LOL, what's wrong with John Hagee? I happen to love his preaching, not my favorite, but very good.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I would never listen to the man myself. I have heard enough about him from others on the radio shows I listen to. It could be what he says on the air is a little toned down from what he puts in his books. From what I understand, he is one of these Israel first guys who believe the Jews will rule the world and that we need to help them out and send money to them to do things like build a new Temple in Jerusalem and turn a blind eye to their ethnic cleansing and genocide. He leaves the possibility open for a future Messiah and dinies the divinity of Christ.
You can look him up in Wikipedia and see he is one of these old fashioned prosperity preachers like Jessy Jackson before he hit the gold mine of shaming whites into paying him off for not calling them racists. Hagee does a new thing by making people think if they support Israel, then God will make them wealthy. So, how is that working out for America, their biggest supporter? Not good and we are being looted by all the Jewish bankers for thanks. Israel has proven over and over that they are not godly. Previous to modern post communist manifesto times, Christians believed that we as the church and body of Christ is literal Israel and the object of prophecies and promises made in old times in the name of Israel. What passes as theology today would have been completely foreign to theologians a hundred and fifty years ago.

edit on 10-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
and people say there are no stupid questions



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by faceoff85
 


I agree with you. I have a question to christians who believe that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, then who exactly is speaking throughout scripture? Is it God, or is it Jesus? If Jesus is God, then Jesus God didn't speak to many issues that plague us today.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Now as a person who is not a Christian. I know what I'm talking about here. "laughs to myself gently." I came across this blog and was curious as to what Christians have to say to this article.
Source Click the source.
Now I know Christians have different views on Jesus and the concept of God. The concept of God in Judaism and Islam is similar. God in Judaism God in Islam It would be a sin in Judaism and Islam to claim God as a human. Which is idolatry. I know Some of you would post the comment Jesus was at the time of Abraham. Then why didn't he appear in human forum and build God as an idol? The same with destroying the idols his brother created? I would imagine he would create a little Jesus statue figure if he spoke to Jesus.



I missed this topic.... Well RR, God specifically said in one of the books in the NT, that everything he did was as a servant (including prayer), which means, think about it.

Christ predicted his own death and knew it was coming. He was acting as a servant, praying as a servant and so forth... not as if to get out of what was going to happen but as a sign.

But was equal to God according to phillipians..... I forgot the verse..

peace.
edit on 4-7-2011 by JesusisTruthh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


John Hagee is preaching that which is not scriptural. He preaches that Christ will reign for ever, and for ever and forever. One too many "for evers". Rev. tells us that He is "King of the eons", except in the KJV. It states "King of saints". The exact Greek word in this verse is "eons", not "saints". After His last eon, Christ ceases to reign. He turns over the Kingdom to God His Father and God becomes "all in all". If Christ were to reign for ever, He would never accomplish His mission of "...placing all His enemies under His feet". That is why the scriptures tell us He will reign until that is accomplished.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 

1 Corinthians 15: 24-28 NIV

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


Also

Matthew 28:18
Here are some of the very last words of the resurrected Jesus Christ before he went back to heaven.

Jesus approached and, breaking the silence, said to them, All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.


The scriptures are clear extra power and authority are given to Jesus so he can accomplish God's purposes. When that purpose is accomplished he then willing gives that power back. God is giving him this power and authority that is why Jesus prayed to God and not himself.
But we are in agreement, I post this for others to see.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


King James Bible:


"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."



The NIV comes from Westcott and Hort who admit they were not believers and denied the deity of Jesus Christ. They removed any reference to His deity. In the gospels they even claim Joseph is the "father" of Jesus.

edit on 5-7-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


John Hagee is preaching that which is not scriptural. He preaches that Christ will reign for ever, and for ever and forever. One too many "for evers". Rev. tells us that He is "King of the eons", except in the KJV. It states "King of saints". The exact Greek word in this verse is "eons", not "saints". After His last eon, Christ ceases to reign. He turns over the Kingdom to God His Father and God becomes "all in all". If Christ were to reign for ever, He would never accomplish His mission of "...placing all His enemies under His feet". That is why the scriptures tell us He will reign until that is accomplished.


I'd assume John Hagee, like millions of Christians, refuse to use Bible versions that have been translated from manuscripts the apostlic fathers and ante-Nicean fathers rejected as "vile" and "corrupt". (The Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaticus)


And even if John gets that one thing wrong, who cares?? We are all still sinners with flesh, we don't have resurrected bodies free for sin yet. That means we are also not free from making errors. Heck, Peter himself was in error by bowing to the Judaizers and had to be rebuked by Paul to his face. John Hagee has the Holy Spirit abiding in him, because he says Jesus is Lord. No one can say/believe Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. And Jesus also forbade His disciples from turning away men who were not in their group and told them that they were not His enemies.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No one can say/believe Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit.
Are you saying that Satan doesn't believe Jesus is Lord? The bible says that even the demons believe and tremble. Do they have the holy spirit?

Do the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church have the holy spirit? If so, wtf is the holy spirit doing with them?

But back on topic. It is strange that if these two are one and the same that they both have different wills. Jesus did not want to be crucified but god wanted him to be crucified. I wonder if in heaven, they will both have different wills while up there together, even though they are both the same person....
edit on 5-7-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3


"No man" probably doesn't include satan, since of course satan isn't a man.




posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


"No man" probably doesn't include satan, since of course satan isn't a man.

You didn't answer the second part. Do the Westboro Baptist Church members have the holy spirit since they say that Jesus is Lord? And if so, wtf?



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Oh Please, I could go on to quote many other bibles that make it better understood than that archaic Shakespearean language does, People the KJV was good in it's day, I even have one, but language has developed beyond it's semantics. We have better bibles now.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

They removed any reference to His deity.
I'm looking at a table of removed texts and there are a total of three, outside of the Gospels and Acts.
You don't think there would have been any discussion about deity outside those? You might want to elaborate or is that just something you read on a blog and never verified for yourself?

edit on 5-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Oh Please, I could go on to quote many other bibles that make it better understood than that archaic Shakespearean language does, People the KJV was good in it's day, I even have one, but language has developed beyond it's semantics. We have better bibles now.


Yeah, the Bible needs to be revealed by it's author, the Holy Spirit. It doesn't need revisions by translators using Roman Catholic manuscripts. Fifty years ago people read the KJB just fine, not that much has changed in our time. The Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test scored the KJB as easiest to read in 21 of 25 categories.

That's a myth. I use a KJB and have no problems understanding it.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join