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.

 

is jesus, god?

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
No he is not Almighty God, he is the only begotten Son of God, they are two separate and very distinct entities, unified in purpose and action, similar to the sentiments of Genesis 2:24

This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.


The Council of Nicea just made it church dogma in a grand conspiracy that has lasted through the ages.

One well informed poster listed it as #1 of all time when asked to list there top three conspiracies.


The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D and how it changed the true face of Christianity




It is at #20 of all time on the ATS poll



No modern Christian should allow a bunch of old, long dead men, decide this important point for them.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by one_man24
 


Responding to the OP. I have made a thread about dis myself. I have been for a long time in conflict of the answer. The bible leads to believe in that Jesus is God's begotten son. Other scripture point to Jesus as the word of God and as God.

First I like to point that when Jesus got baptize. The heaven open up and GOD SAID WHAT!!!! THIS IS MY SON WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED.

Jesus Christ is deffently God's Son. With scripture showing Jesus recieving the spirit of God, Jesus praying and worshiping God. Who Could Jesus be but God's SON.

Jesus also said that many would come in my name and cliam I am the christ.

Scripture also tell us that who ever denies that Jesus Christ is God's Son IS AN ANTICHRIST.


Jesus also said in Bread of life John chapter 6 v 38-40
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.


Tell me brother and sisters please in all heart how can you go against what God said and Jesus himself said.
Jesus calls God his own father every single time he talks about God. He call God his own father.

jesus says my father is greater than I. MY FATHER MY FATHER WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKWE ME.

Jesus speaking about the end of times. Said that neither HE (JESUS HIMSELF) nor man know the timing of Christ coming. But only God knows the timeing of Jesus coming

But again we must remember that Jesus does have a devine nature. Jesus exist before ADAM. God used Jesus to create everthing. Jesus exist before man and the earth with God and angles and even with Satan as one of the most beatiful angels in the world. Satan at that time had no evil in him and he was pure.

The John book give us without a dout a divine nature to Jesus. As the first three Gospel protray Jesus as the Son. John Shows Jesus as more one with God.

In the beginning was the word and word was with God and the word became flesh. Jesus Christ here is shown as God.


The truth of the matter is Jesus is God's Son. Without a dout Jesus is God Son. Jesus pray and talk about his father. Jesus said that he came to do God's will not his own. And Scritpure point to the antichrist that denie Jesus as the Son of God. I cant tell you forshare if Jesus is God. God I can tell you Jesus claim mostly that he was God's son. Jesus did also claim he was one with God and that when you see jesus you see God.

I also know that Jesus is like a GOD. Jesus was giving all power in heaven, there for Jesus was given almost all the power of God. Jesus is to be worhip, we know this from the gospel and revelation. The 24 elders worhship God and Jesus. I think its also important to know that if Jesus was fully God Jesus would never have needed god's spirit, Jesus would never need being baptize.

God bless and happy new years everbody. My years is to fix my life and be with God.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Creating dogma is always a bad idea and the way it was done at Nicea was an extraordinarily bad way to make dogma, so it is doubly damned.
Isaiah 9:6 says something interpreted some times as Almighty God but the proper understanding would be that as representing God, the said person is empowered with a divine strength and authority for the purpose of the mission said representative is on.
But, to disrespect that same person by pointing out some sort of deficiency and judging that person and holding him in low regard for not being actually the Almighty God, is not a good idea, in my opinion. The reason God gives that person the power is so people will respect his authority. To quibble over technicalities will engender the wrath of the one who sent him.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Gary13
 


well kids looking through all the replys, seems there a difference of opinion. when i started this thread, i new it would bring different opinions. i feel like the devil's advocate. i personally think that JESUS IS NOT GOD. but back to the devil, he is the ruler of the earth, he will do everything in his power to confuse us. we are told to be aware of him the devil, so i would say it is the devil that has put all these different ideas out. so don't think your sitting safe with god and jesus, because you just might be doing the devil's work. so if you think you are safe just because you believe in god and jesus, don't be fooled, for we know satan the devil is amongst us, and he is the father of the lie. so don't through your lives away on lies, remember you are on your own, there is no one else to blame but yourself for getting it wrong. so with armageddon being apon us, there's not much time.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gary13
 


What was the point of this thread? You haven't refuted any of the evidence I provide. None of you have. I'm sorry, but it's not about opinions anymore. I have proven that Christ claimed divinity. Now it's all well and dandy for you to develop an opinion on whether He was full of it or not......but the issue of whether He claimed divinity is open and shut. If you need more, just do a google search. I repeat, for you Gary, Christ claimed divinity. Whether you believe Him or not, it's up to you.

Blue_Jay33 How are you today sir? Hope you are well.
There are explanations for everything. Christ endorsed the OT when He quoted Moses and the Prophets, so the OT wasn't in quesion so much as the NT. There were so many books of the Bible springing up every where, with known fakes, that they decided to try to put together a group that was deemed trustworthy by the elders of the churches. Also, they didn't forbid the study of any non canonical books, they just questioned whether or not they were truly divinely inspired. Does anyone here ever research both sides before they make their opinion? This is what this site is supposed to be about.

A short treatise on the Apocrypha, for example:
www.jesus-is-lord.com...

*I don't necessarily endorse everything on this site. I haven't studied the site much myself, but I felt like the author's treatise on the Apocrypha would help shed some light on the criteria the early christian church used to decide to reject some books as divinely inspired while endorsing others.
edit on 22-1-2011 by one_man24 because: to add a source, and my original post came across as rude



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by one_man24
 


see you at the lake then one man. you haven't proven anything to me, you just convinced yourself you are right. and what's the point of this thread, so we question ourselves, and question the information we take in. don't forget if you are a christian, you should be praying for me, instead of arguing with me. brother. stay safe.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


but who is the son without the father ? (what makes the man) the father is the teacher as observed by men of old days when things weren't so hectic... the son is the father.

reply to post by one_man24
 


Jesus was God come into flesh, hence the son of God... just as your seed has come from your father.

Jesus took what his father taught him and took it out into the world so that other may better understand how to live and what life is all about, and what feels good about life.

Mankind killed him... but his spirit (teachings) went out into the world... see you can't kill an idea.

1,2,3, (father to son relationship is the spirit)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 





the son is the father


That may become true for biological beings, but not for spiritual beings with the exception of God himself who created Jesus. He is the only spirit being with a spirit son and the angels are also his sons too, but Jesus was the first thing God ever created, before the universe itself, before Genesis 1:1. Thus 1 John 4:9

In this the love of God was made manifest (displayed) where we are concerned: in that God sent His Son, the only begotten or unique [Son], into the world so that we might live through Him.


His only begotten son is unique not because of his arrival on earth but because of his second in command in the universe status. And he was created first, Jesus and God have a unique relationship.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


that's heavy Blue Jay, I have to wrap my mind around that one, for I still can see how it relates to both biological and spiritual. There is something about trinities I guess I am still trying to make sense of, only further inquiry on my part is needed... and also a little better knowledge of the bible.

I think Trinity is very interesting though because lot of things can be applied to it like there is three ways of looking at everything.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gary13
just a quick one. many christians claim that jesus is god. but in exodus 33: 20 it says, no man can look at him without dieing. so if jesus is god, when anyone who looked at him, would die. so if no one died when they looked at jesus, so jesus must not be god then.


Look at anytime the phrase "Angel of the Lord" is used in the OT. It's a preincarnate Jesus. You'll see that it introduces Him as the "Angel of the Lord", but then shifts when He speaks to say either "then God said X" or "then the Lord said X". Also this "Angel of the Lord" accepts human worship and anytime an angel is shown in the OT or NT they always refuse human worship.

In the gospels Jesus tells satan that only god is to be worshipped, yet accepts worship numerous times. When Jesus was incarnate on the Earth He displayed two natures, divine and human. Jehovahs Witnesses focus on his human nature alone and turn a blind eye to His divine characteristics. Christian Science cultists do the opposite. They focus on the verses that show His divine nature only and turn a blind eye to the verses showing His human nature.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Jesus was never "created". He is eternal, in fact it says in the scripture His origins is "from everlasting". The same "everlasting" spoken of for the Father. Unless you're just speaking of Him adding humanity to His divinity at the incarnation then I'd agree with you, just wish you worded it differently. The way you have it now seems to imply there was a time when Jesus the Son didn't exist when the scripture clearly says He is eternal, from everlasting, and had no beginning.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
Not so much a comment on your post so much but to continue on with what you were saying about what Gary said.
Jesus said that, the thing about no one seeing God.
Now he was someone who could make such a comment, being intimately acquainted with the subject, having come from God and knowing God, and being right there with God, in Heaven.
It's hard for us to know what he meant exactly because of the ambiguity that may arise from several transferences from one language to another, of his original thought.
It could have been that he meant that no man alive today, meaning when he said that (and John the Baptist was dead at this point). You would have to wonder about the story in Genesis 2 of the regular encounters between Adam and Jehovah God in the Garden before he sinned and was subsequently cast out on account of that sin.
There is also the later statement in the New Testament "He who knew no sin" meaning Jesus.
So Jesus very well could have had a face to face encounter with God, while in the existence he had as a man. Not that it is so critical a question, or one that anyone would ever even consider.
The more important question to me would be if there are varying degrees of reality to a God encounter by a mortal man. Well, yes of course if we were to accept Jesus as in some way being God himself and not just someone who may or may not have met the Almighty God in person. I would have to think that the raw and unveiled, total revelation of the majesty of the very upholder and creative force and source of all energy in the universe, would be something not only could not be survivable to any created being, but really couldn't happen anyway because of the difficulty of containing everything which is God, in one place, as we would think of a normal person being in a particular spot on a given moment. So, the statement would still hold true but it would have to be understood in its broadest sense, that only someone who is a god himself, meaning not created, but eternal, could fully comprehend God.
Every glimpse of God by every being that ever existed other than this one person, Jesus, is just that, a glimpse, like Moses had on Sinai. He had God encounters but he knew that they were mere angelic representations of the real God that lived too high above the earth to ever live on this place and lounge about having ongoing conversations with this person and that person. But He could briefly pass by to where if Moses was on top of the highest mountain, he could see the edge of the hem of His garment as He make His way past this world, to other worlds in His course of surveying His creation.

edit on 23-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Once again I do not follow the standard church dogma, I follow what the bible teaches, which is Jesus is the very first created being, before even the physical universe began. In fact it is Jesus creation that started time, because before that time never existed as there were no markers to define it. God existed alone for infinity, until this singular wonderful act of creation. And then his Son the Great Carpenter helped his Father build the universe.

Colossians 1:15 different translations

New International Version - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.



Bible in Basic English - Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things



King James Bible - Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:



Contemporary English Version - Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation.


Jesus Christ has a spiritual intimacy that is so close to his Father that he can mirror his Fathers qualities perfectly. They have a perfect unity, but that doesn't make them a Trinity.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You're not understanding Hebrew. "Firstborn" in the Hebrew means "chief born" or most important born. It's one of any number of "Hebraisms". You'll likewise read in your Bible that David was called "firstborn" as well, yet we know he was the youngest son of Jesse. (Psalm 89:27) When it talks about Jesus being the "firstborn" of creation it is speaking of His human incarnation, not His existence. The Bible clearly says His origin is "from everlasting". The exact same term used for the Father.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





You're not understanding Hebrew. "Firstborn" in the Hebrew means "chief born" or most important born. It's one of any number of "Hebraisms".


Your post demonstrates a good level of understanding, but you need to take it to the next level.

Here are the contextual facts of the quoted scripture:

First we are in the Christian GREEK Scriptures, which means this was written in Greek not Hebrew.

Second this was written by the Apostle Paul who although was a Jew was also a Roman Citizen.

Third this was written away from the Judean district in Rome between 60-61 AD .

Forth Paul was writing to the congregation in Colossae which is located in the south east Turkey which means they were mostly gentile Greek speaking people, and mixed races.

Because of all these points it is easy to see why your Hebraism logically doesn't apply, in this particular bible verse. Part of truly understanding the bible is not what the clergy teaches, but research, mediation and Holy Spirit. When you combine these elements you are capable of having a spiritual epiphany.

May your spiritual journey produce one for you.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


There could be some other esoteric allusion going on in that description in Colossians for all we know.
You know they had secret religions, right?
We still don't know those secrets but knew they had them.
Paul would have been one who did, and said as much when shipwrecked and told the locals who came out to them that he was not a barbarian, meaning he was an initiate into the Greek culture.
Another thing I have problems with is this letter. It purports to be from this city which conveniently was destroyed by seismic activity which means there was no one to verify that it was an authentic writing by Paul, so I would be careful about a dependency on that one letter for substantiating a tenant of belief that has no other source than Colossians.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


That's a nice history lesson, if you believe God doesn't contradict Himself then you also have to hold true the verses saying Christ's origin was "from everlating" meaning eternity. Unless you're speaking of Christ's incarnation He is not "created", He IS the Creator.




edit on 24-1-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


It's interesting that suddenly a scripture that supports a unitarian belief is suddenly suspect.
I would remind you and any other christian to consider this scripture before you do that.

2 Timothy 3:16

Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 
Right, but show me where it says his own writings should be classified as "scripture". And show me the list Paul drew up indicating which one of his letters should be in the Canon of this new Scripture.
Edit to add note: I would include II Timothy in the list of suspect letters.


edit on 24-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I would include II Timothy in the list of suspect letters.


The path of discrediting books of the bible leads to the dark side.

So, I can't help you, help yourself to the path of accurate truth via scripture.
Sorry, until you accept all 66 books of the bible, you will never be able to see a clear picture of accurate bible truth.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join