It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
my take on how Jesus can be fully man and fully God:
Greatest I am recommended the book, 'Jesus Wars' to you 10 days ago on the "in the hands of the Romans" thread.
I was wondering if you have read it yet.
I just downloaded the Kindle version of it last night and haven't gotten to far into it yet.
It seems like it should be a good introduction into the general topic of the question of Jesus' nature.
I've studied quite a bit into it over the last few years just reading what I could find available on-line. It is pretty much a hit and miss sort of thing and not that easy to find when you are actually trying to.edit on 27-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19
He also claimed to be God, He forgave Sins, and He supplemented OT Laws (Only God can do these things) so Jesus claimed to be God many many times!
I've heard people say Jesus had a different "father" from the "violent" God of the OT.
YHWH is not violent, because if He was, Jesus would be violent, because Jesus is God (YHWH).
The Papal bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455 has served as the basis of legal arguments for taking Native American lands by "discovery", and continues to do so today. The logic of the rights of conquest and discovery were followed in all western nations including those that never recognised papal authority. This continued under the Americans after they established the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1823 case Johnson v. M'Intosh that as a result of European discovery of lands not owned by Christians, the ownership and rights to the lands went from the original European conquerors to the Americans by treaties made with the European conquerors; the Native Americans had no say in these discoveries or treaties, nor any rights as non-Christians to the right of title to the land. They only had the right to occupancy in their native lands, as long as permitted by Europeans and their successors to remain there. Since "discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy either by purchase or by conquest", they could and would be kicked off the land at any time the Americans felt the need to do so. This is and has served as the basis for federal Indian law since 1823
Romanus Pontifex - America
Exodus 24:9 Then Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up. 10 They saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was like a paved work of sapphire stone, like the skies for clearness. 11 He didn’t lay his hand on the nobles of the children of Israel. They saw God, and ate and drank.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
That is not a Christian philosophy but a product of Messianic Judaism.
Jesus is the Word, or the Voice of God. The Torah made flesh, or you can even say he is the Teaching made flesh.
Originally posted by godlover25
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
I get so sad reading through these posts and replies to my thread,
All I did was state facts, and people treat me as if I'm speaking like a mad man.
Oh well, I did my part, I told the Truth and did my best to spread the LORDS Message,
All you people who deny Him, just know, you will face him, you will answer to him, you cannot run, you cannot hide, I pray you wake up before it's too late.
If anyone wants a "grasp" of what Jesus was about, I would recommend reading what he said about himself.
If you want to get a firm grasp on who and what Jesus is, you have to combine the new testament with the old testament and understand what is being said. Isaiah lays it down plainly so all who could know who he is from Isaiah chapter 1 to chapter 66, but the meat of the arguement can be found in chapters 42-45.
That is what John 1 is talking about, that the light was there but the world perceived it not.
Throughout the old testament we see God condemn Israel for failing to hear his Voice (his Teacher).
This was an expert in the Law, Law proper, meaning what Jesus specifies in his reply by saying "the Law and the Prophets" which is the basic sort of thing as what we think of as the old testament today.
In the new testament we see the fulfillment of his Voice and his commandments in Mattew 22:35-40:
Before the advent of the second covenant there had always been a veil between God and man.
That makes no sense because there was no necessity to shield people from God since they were nowhere in proximity of God where they might be destroyed. Maybe you mean the flesh was some sort of barrier to God inside Jesus somehow.
The veil between God and man after the birth of Christ was Jesus . . .
Not God proper, who would be who Jesus would have referred to as his Heavenly Father.
. . . God began to walk amoung men as Jesus, that veil was still in place, but Jesus revealed the Father to Phillip in John 14 . . .
You do realize this is a public forum, right?
I won't explain to you how you're doing that or give you explanations for the scriptures you posted . . .
You are taking some liberty, apparently with John 1, since the Light, or Logos, it explains at the very beginning is God.
. . . and we see that the Son of God (Light of God) is the physical manifestation of the Father, and his Glory and his Glory is his Light.
Huh? This is all made up stuff.
With the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins the veil was ripped from top to bottom signifying that men were no longer cut off from God, and Jesus assumed his Godhood once more and God dwelled amoung men for 40 days as he was before he became a man, in the form of the Almighty.
Taking scriptures out of context and trying to use them against the Truth is exactly what Satan did and what you're trying to do now,
It is asking how you come up with your preaching, which has to be from a cult since you have this inability to explain how you came up with these ideas. The mindless repeating of ideas you get from meetings is the definition of a cult.
. . . calling you a cultist, like the fellow below your post i quoted.
All they are is mind games, don't fall into the trap.