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.

 

John 1

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





I love quantum physics and the thing that what really confuses them is why any of this works, what the glue is (that is why they search for the Higgs Boson), it is because the glue of the universe is sentience, what God said, "I Am", not the sound of a word that we will never know the sound of, it is the meaning, it is self awareness, the ability to know right from wrong and the ability to choose which path we take. When the church dies, the real game begins. We are close; but, we are not there yet.
I like this part, and the quantum world is definitely my favourite science as well next to astronomy and astrophysics. Consciousness is surely the glue though.


I have to wonder though, you've stated several times in this post that's it not an actual "sound." Sound is only a vibration, and all things in life vibrate at different frequencies. High vibrations make you feel elated, low vibrations make you feel like #.
So, why couldn't the "word" actually refer to vibration?

Also, what if the cosmos is actually saying, or rather asking: "I Am?"




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 




Christianity is not the stupidity that you hear on television. Those are perverts of the word and themselves. I work with a man that knew them all.


This is what I do not like, they get others to believe in them, by their large churches, or their swift words. Take a look at ATS. One can write a long thread on here, with a bunch of links, images, and videos. People will come in and star and flag it, they don't care to see what was said, they just liked it, because it "seems" to be a well thought out thread, same with the churches today.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 




But even the Seraphim's cover their face in the presence of God.


Matthew 18:10


"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.


No one above covers their face. Father doesn't take to well you not looking at him when speaking.

edit on 20-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father," John 6:46


Exodus 33:20, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live."

So again, if Jesus and god have no confusion as to their oneness than all that other confusion is purely on us not understanding the very nature of god.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 




"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father," John 6:46




Exodus 33:20, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live."


Both of these quotes, they are referring to man, not above.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Isaiah 6:2

Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.


This Is in the throne room of god, now I'd always assumed they cover their face to not see god.

But again this is a man seeing the spiritual realm so who knows what really is going on.

Again if Jesus considers it okay to use the I am statements of god than we can assume he knows full well his relationship with god.

It's our confusion on this nature that causes problems.

To this day the trinity is still debated, again it's our confusion on the matter, one which you asked opinion on.

It is mine that many things can be explained in a multi-dimensional universe theory such as super string, that problems with the all are one and separate thing fits perfectly with a 10th dimensional being stepping down to what ever are he needs to and manifest as either god the father, Jesus or the spirit.

And all those problems and questions theologians have pondered over the years are due to 4 dimensional beings trying to grasps 10 dimensional problems.
edit on 20-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 




This Is in the throne room of god, now I'd always assumed they cover their face to not see god.


No one but an arc or higher is allowed in his chambers, just curious as to where you say this is in his room?



But again this is a man seeing the spiritual realm so who knows what really is going on.


Great answer.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Coming back to the original question, consider the statement "I'm going to spend the weekend with the family".
On the face of it, the word "with" implies that the speaker and the family are two different things.
Yet no-one hearing that sentence would doubt that the speaker is a member of the family that he's talking about.
What is really happening is that "with the family" is short-hand for "with the rest of the family", so that "I am a member of this family, and I'm going to be with the family" is actually using the word "family" in two slightly different ways.
So it is with the beginning of John.
The Word "was God" (ie a member of that three-membered family which is God)
At the same time, the Word was "with God" (ie with the rest of the family)

"The Word was God" and "the Word was with God" can both be understood independently without reference to a Trinity doctrine, but only some some sort of understanding along Trinity lines will cover them both together.



edit on 20-7-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 






John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God



The verse above has been more accurately translated by some to instead read …




“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine”


This has been suggested because the last word “God”, is different from the word “God” used before it.

So IMO

The Father = God

The Word = Yeshua, The Son of God

This is why there are 2 witnesses…



John 8:17-18
17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”


The Father Speaks through Yeshua, and Yeshua also speaks on his own behalf.



John 14:10-11
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.


And again



John 14:24
24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.




John 14:1
Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.


Yeshua in the above verse, is asking us to not only believe in God, but too believe in him! also.



John 8:17
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”



This is why Yeshua says he is one with the Father, because he is a part of, and one with God, in Spirit.



John 10:29
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”




John 14:20
20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.


Above, Yehsua is talking about the day when you will receive the Holy Spirit, and enter into the family of God.



John 15:1
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.”


The Father = The Gardener

Yeshua = The Vine + The Word + The Son of God



John 15:1
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”


When you are in the vine, you are in Yeshua, and you are also in the Father.

This is why Yehshua is the way to the Father.



John 17:20
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.




John 16:28
28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”


He came from the Father, because he is the Word, who was with God/Father in the beginning.



John 17:25-26
25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”



- JC



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft


“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine”

This has been suggested because the last word “God”, is different from the word “God” used before it.


But "being divine" is a quality that belongs exclusively to God.
That's what the word "divine" means.
It is not possible for someone to be divine without being God.
So there is really no difference between the two translations.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Originally posted by DIREALI
But "being divine" is a quality that belongs exclusively to God.
That's what the word "divine" means.


Well, God is defined as the creator. So if all things were created through Yehsua/Word and God/Father, then that makes them both God and Divine.

The only difference would be that the word God, is being applied to 2 entities, and not one. Which would actually make the sentence, make a lot more grammatical sense.



Originally posted by DIREALI
It is not possible for someone to be divine without being God.
So there is really no difference between the two translations.



Not even if He’s the Son of God?


And remember, the Son is one with God in spirit, which is what makes him divine IMO.


- JC



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

Everything was made by the father for the son.

It's not in the Bible, but it's congruent.

Seems soliptistic, but it's not.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
Well, God is defined as the creator. So if all things were created through Yehsua/Word and God/Father, then that makes them both God and Divine.

The only difference would be that the word God, is being applied to 2 entities, and not one. Which would actually make the sentence, make a lot more grammatical sense.

I suggested a solution to the grammatical question in my post previous to that one, when I drew an analogy with the phrase "I'm spending time with my family". If somebody is part of a family, does it make grammatical sense that he is also "with" that family? Yes it does, on the understanding that in the second case "the family" really means "the rest of the family".
In the same way, the Word can be "part of God" in one sense, while also being "with" the other elements of God.
The difference between your explanation and the traditional explanation is that your explanation tends towards tritheism (three different gods), while the traditional explanation is about having three different elements in one and the same God.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
It means what it says, and that word "God" is not his name. His name is Yahweh. So it should read as "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was Yahweh. Now you know why so many christians and muslims are confused about Jesus being Yahweh.

Now you know why in John 14 Jesus told Philip and Thomas if they had seen him they had seen the Father. Specifically Yahweh. If they had seen him they had seen Yahweh, the face Yahweh gave us so we could look on him and not die.

Who we call Jesus is the Holder of the name above all names. That name is Yahweh.

John 17:11-12

11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.


edit on 21-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Originally posted by DISREALI
If somebody is part of a family, does it make grammatical sense that he is also "with" that family? Yes it does, on the understanding that in the second case "the family" really means "the rest of the family".


Yes, with the Family, but not the Father only.

IMO He’s part of the family, but He is a separate entity, in his own right, yet He is one in Spirit with God/Father.

If you think about it, why would a distinction be made between 2 things and then state, oh, there’s now only one, and they are both the same etc? Because that’s the part which doesn’t make any grammatical sense.

Which is why I believe the last usage of the word “God”, is referring to something different, from the first usage of the same word.

Your analogy is a nice attempt to wrap up that one verse neatly, but you would also have to address the rest of the verses, I quoted in my first post.

Along with this…



Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


And whom is God talking too?



Originally posted by DISREALI
The difference between your explanation and the traditional explanation is that your explanation tends towards tritheism (three different gods), while the traditional explanation is about having three different elements in one and the same God.


I’m not entirely sure how you reached, the “tritheism (three different gods)” theory, from my first post. What I’m actually proposing is more of a “byinity” (made up word), (2 Gods) but only one Father/God.

And just too add…



Originally posted by DISREALI
But "being divine" is a quality that belongs exclusively to God.
That's what the word "divine" means.


You say being divine is a quality that belongs exclusively to God, but take a look at this verse below…



John 8:17-18
17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”


If you were a normal man with the Spirit of God living in you, then you would only state, that the Father speaking through you, is the one who has authority. But as you can clearly see from the verse above, Jesus is also saying, that He has the power to testify for himself!!!

How can anyone claim to testify for themselves, along with God?

There’s only one possible answer IMO, Yeshua is the Word, and was there in the beginning, with God the Father.

And please note Yeshua, makes the distinction that there are 2 witnesses, and not one.


- JC

edit on 21-7-2012 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2012 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
IMO He’s part of the family, but He is a separate entity, in his own right, yet He is one in Spirit with God/Father.

But this is effectively what Trinitarian doctrine is getting at, that there is a sense in which they are one, and another sense in which they are distinct


If you think about it, why would a distinction be made between 2 things and then state, oh, there’s now only one, and they are both the same etc?

But your own statement quoted above is saying much the same thing; that there is a sense in which they are distinct, and another sense in which they are one.

Given that God is incomprehensible by definition (a finite mind cannot "contain" that which is infinite), it seems a little presumptuous to demand that a description of his nature should be something we can easily understand.
Suppose it were really the case that God was three in one sense, and one in another sense; how else could that situation be described except in the kind of ambiguous language that we've been given?. If God's nature is such that it cannot make sense to us, because our minds are too small, we shouldn't be surprised if the description of it doesn't make perfect sense either.

In any case, the paradox involved is no worse than the fact that Florida and California can be different states and yet part of the same nation? How is that possible? It makes no grammatical sense (because we all know that a nation is a state).


I’m not entirely sure how you reached, the “tritheism (three different gods)” theory, from my first post.

True, but conventional terms to describe the two of them on their own aren't conveniently available.It was a quick and easy way to contrast two different kinds of Father/Son relationship; the kind that belongs to Trinitarian theory, and the kind that belongs to tritheism.



You say being divine is a quality that belongs exclusively to God, but take a look at this verse below

My statement was based on the definition of the word "divine". That is what it has to mean. The verse you quote says nothing about the definition. You can't get past that point.

And please note Yeshua, makes the distinction that there are 2 witnesses, and not one.

Yes, and the standard teaching of Trinitarian theology is that there is a distinction between God the Father and God the Son. So you can quote a million verses to show that there is a distinction, and it won't affect the teaching one jot. The fact that there is a distinction has already been built into the doctrine..




edit on 21-7-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




Originally posted by DISREALI
Yes, and the standard teaching of Trinitarian theology is that there is a distinction between God the Father and God the Son. So you can quote a million verses to show that there is a distinction, and it won't affect the teaching one jot. The fact that there is a distinction has already been built into the doctrine.


But the Trinity essentially teaches that they are one and the same, and not that they are one in Spirit, and are 2 individual beings.

The Trinity is defined something like this below…

“The Trinity expresses the belief that God is one Being made up of three distinct Persons.”



Originally posted by Joecroft
IMO He’s part of the family, but He is a separate entity, in his own right, yet He is one in Spirit with God/Father.




Originally posted by DISREALI
But this is effectively what Trinitarian doctrine is getting at, that there is a sense in which they are one, and another sense in which they are distinct


Yes, you’re absolutely right, there is a distinct difference made by the Trinitarian doctrine, but the Trinity also takes this a step too far IMO, by stating that God manifest one minute as the Son, and then in another moment, manifests as the Father, with the Father being all that there truly is etc, that is the key aspect, that I disagree with. The Trinity also states they are co-equal, which is something that Yeshua disagrees with.

Yehsua is only one with God in Spirit, and is not the Father/God, he is the Son. Just like when we become one with the Father and He in us etc; we don’t then become God/Father, we remain ourselves, but become one with God in Spirit.



Originally posted by Joecroft
If you think about it, why would a distinction be made between 2 things and then state, oh, there’s now only one, and they are both the same etc?



Originally posted by DISREALI
But your own statement quoted above is saying much the same thing; that there is a sense in which they are distinct, and another sense in which they are one.


Not exactly, although it was hard too tell from my other posts. The Trinity states that, it’s all just one God, who can also manifest as the Son. I’m saying there are two distinct entities, who are spiritually one. Which is big major difference. And I'm also saying, that there are only 2, and not 3!




Originally posted by DISREALI
Given that God is incomprehensible by definition (a finite mind cannot "contain" that which is infinite), it seems a little presumptuous to demand that a description of his nature should be something we can easily understand.


But isn’t this what the Trinitarian doctrine has already done? I.e. made presumptuous demands on people to believe it?

For example, the Trinitarian’s freely admits that the doctrine itself, leads to many contradiction’s, throughout the 4 Gospels.

And Interestingly enough, I think the LDS church doesn’t even try to define God/Father, the Son and Holy Spirit, because they believe it’s up to each individual to figure this out with Gods help, for themselves.

So we have the Trinitarians who believe in the Trinity, even though they know it leads to contradictions, and by their own admission the contradictions are explained away, as being mystery.

And on the flip side of that, we have the LDS Church, who refuses to accept the Trinity Doctrine, for the very same reasons, in that God is a mystery and therefore shouldn’t be defined. With the emphasis being put onto the individual defining those things for themselves, through their own spiritual journey and walk with God etc.

Which seems to me like a much more reasonable approach. Rather than just accepting something, which leads to known contradictions. I.e. The Trinity.



Originally posted by DISREALI
My statement was based on the definition of the word "divine". That is what it has to mean. The verse you quote says nothing about the definition. You can't get past that point.


But this is just my point. The first usage of the word God in John 1, is different from its second usage and this is fairly well known. Which clearly suggests that it’s a different God entity, to the first.

One simple example.

Let just say there is a Tree/God, who has a Son/Tree, and we’ll call the Son the “Light.”

A sentence to describe them both might go as follows…

In the beginning was the “Light”, and the “Light” was with the Tree/God, and the “Light” was a/Tree.

The first usage of the word “Tree” is the Father/God, and the second usage of the word “Tree”, describes the Light. In other words, they are Both Trees but they are not the same Tree, although they are one in their branches/Spirit.


- JC



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft


Originally posted by DISREALI
Given that God is incomprehensible by definition (a finite mind cannot "contain" that which is infinite), it seems a little presumptuous to demand that a description of his nature should be something we can easily understand.


But isn’t this what the Trinitarian doctrine has already done? I.e. made presumptuous demands on people to believe it?

Yes, but I did not say that "belief" was presumptuous, did I?
I said that "expecting to fully understand" was presumptuous.
A famous remark by Tertullian highlights the difference between the two.
I don't think any Trinitarian would claim that the Trinity doctrine amounts to full understanding. It is just the closest approximation that we can manage.


The first usage of the word God in John 1, is different from its second usage and this is fairly well known. Which clearly suggests that it’s a different God entity, to the first.

It's not well-known at all. Let's look at the actiual Greek text;
EN ARCHE- In the beginning
EN- was
HO LOGOS- The Word
KAI and
HO LOGOS- The Word
EN- was
PROS- with
TON THEON- God
KAI- and
THEOS- God
EN- was
HO LOGOS- The Word

They are the same word! (ie THEOS). Calling them "different usages" is a desperate attempt to ignore the plain fact of language, that they are the same word!

Meanwhile, we are Biblically instructed that there is only one God. We are told in the first commandment to believe in no others except that one.
God says in Isaiah;
"I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is only one God"- Isaiah ch45 v5

Those are the plain Biblical statements, and so we are stuck with them, and must deal with them as best we can
If the Father is God and the Word is God, and yet there is only one God, then they must in some way be the same God.
This is better than trying to pretend that the text doesn't actually say what it clearly says, just because people don't like the logical consequences.





edit on 21-7-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.


It says in the beginning, the Word was with God, but then it says the Word was God. To some this is confusing. How can one be with, but be self?

What is your take on this particular verse?
Looking at the Greek text, it says God was the word.

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Logos is what is translated as word, but it is important to understand that the New Testament was written by Hellenistic Jews turned Christian, which should be apparent in that they were writing in Greek. So Logos has a deeper sort of meaning among the Greek philosophies of the time this book was written, and even among the diaspora Jews, especially of Alexandria.
My own personal opinion based on my understanding of the oral traditions that were very ancient even in the time of Aristotle, is that there was a mind that existed in the void before there was ever a material universe, and it was what created it by applying its thoughts over matter.
What was the mind did not become the universe, but what existed in the universe once there was a place for divine entities to exist in. So what was once a universal mind before the creation became the divinity of the universe, once there was a universe. The remnants, or what existed in a dispersed manner among those entities, of that mind is God, and God as understood to be all the separate persons of a divine nature, considered as a unity.
edit on 21-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Originally posted by DISRAELI
Yes, but I did not say that "belief" was presumptuous, did I?
I said that "expecting to fully understand" was presumptuous.


Why exactly is it presumptions, to try to understand it?

And just to reiterate, isn’t that exactly what the Trinitarian Doctrine has already done, by pronouncing itself, as the truth?




Originally posted by DISRAELI
I don't think any Trinitarian would claim that the Trinity doctrine amounts to full understanding.


Exactly, it’s fallible.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
It is just the closest approximation that we can manage.


Well, IMO it’s not the closest thing to the truth, because it leads to known contradictions.




Originally posted by DISRAELI

The first usage of the word God in John 1, is different from its second usage and this is fairly well known. Which clearly suggests that it’s a different God entity, to the first.

It's not well-known at all. Let's look at the actiual Greek text;
EN ARCHE- In the beginning
EN- was
HO LOGOS- The Word
KAI and
HO LOGOS- The Word
EN- was
PROS- with
TON THEON- God
KAI- and
THEOS- God
EN- was
HO LOGOS- The Word

They are the same word! (ie THEOS). Calling them "different usages" is a desperate attempt to ignore the plain fact of language, that they are the same word!



Ok, I don’t want to get into the whole debate as to whether it’s the same word or not. Because I will admit, it’s entirely possible, that it is the same word; but IMO, it may be the same word textually, only, but not grammatically, i.e. it’s not referring to the same God, or Person. Just like in my “tree” analogy, in my last post.




Originally posted by DISRAELI
Meanwhile, we are Biblically instructed that there is only one God. We are told in the first commandment to believe in no others except that one.

God says in Isaiah;
"I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is only one God"- Isaiah ch45 v5




Well, this is correct because, Yeshua tells us the exact same thing. I.e. that God is one.

But…

Yeshua also said the following…




John 16:28
28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”


And to take it a step further, Yeshua makes a clear distinction, between himself, and God/Father, in the verse below.



John 15:1
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.”


And more importantly…



John 14:1
Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.


So while, like you said, there is only one God; In the above verse, Yeshua asks us to believe not only in God, but to believe also in Him.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
Those are the plain Biblical statements, and so we are stuck with them, and must deal with them as best we can
If the Father is God and the Word is God, and yet there is only one God, then they must in some way be the same God.

This is better than trying to pretend that the text doesn't actually say what it clearly says, just because people don't like the logical consequences.



But you’re only looking at the logical aspects, of that one verse (John 1) and then drawing an immediate, unmovable, conclusion, from there. When all the verses Yeshua speaks, need to be taken into account, in order to come to a better overall understanding.

In other words, you can’t just base your whole conclusion, on John 1 only!

This is why I outlined other specific verses, in my first post and tied them together, to show why I believe what I do.


- JC



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join