God is Jesus; Jesus is God

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Okay thats just it though, the name of the Messiah got translater into greek THEN to english. Weird much? Also if you directly translate his name into english it DOESN'T equal jesus.

reply to post by backcase


jesus is a mushroom or was a leader of a mushroom kult,i dies so u can live,go educate urself a little bit befre telling us all what a retard u are.

reply to post by Phoenix267


when u take mushrooms u become free of sin,sin meant in the old days to miss ur mark in archery,so when u taste the blood of christ u have life,and he who never tasted blood and flash from christ never had life in him,so all of u who never did never had life in u,and thats why u ask these questions,like why did he had to die for us,i didnt do anything etc..well now u know.

reply to post by Elbereth11


You just said that "Jesus is a mushroom" and proceeded to call me a retard... Also your grammar and spelling do not give me the impression that you are so educated yourself.

reply to post by backcase


my Disputing Argument.

But Jesus said "My Father is greater than I."
And they say jesus turned them into priests and a kingdom for His God and Father, and that for us there is but One God, The Father, and One Lord, Jesus Christ.



although my Agreeance with you.

Jesus is refereed to in The Book of Revelation as "Lord God Almighty" and when satan tested him he said to satan : "As it is written. You shall not test your lord, your god."
jesus was once asked about the Father and his reply was "If you've seen me then you've seen the Father."
Timothy 3:16 says, “...God was manifest in the flesh...”
John 1:1-2 and 14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

‘But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.’ (Hebrews 1:8-10)




And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My Lord and my God.


In the New Testament, in Revelation There is the King of Kings who is the Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and the End, The First and the Last, who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.


The Debate over Christs divinity has continued for two thousand years.


Who is the Father, and Who is the Son?

as they say "noone shall come through the father except through me"
And "If you deny me before man i will deny you before my Father in Heaven."

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

reply to post by backcase


I know this reply wasn't to me but since you mentioned my name while I wasn't "present" I think a response is appropriate.

I rather enjoy it when people mention me when im not around, it means what I say is being considered.

Lets see...

Like this Akragon guy, no offense to him, but I believe none of what he says,

Unlike many people you'll speak to on religious matters, I will never demand you listen, or believe what I say...

I think that he is a deceiver.

We'll get back to that one...

He goes directly against the bible and is for it. He will argue it, and then he will be against it. He's here, he's there.

Technically im not against it... Part of it is a nothing more then a good story to me... another part is the words sent directly from God.

I only use the gospels in my debates because of my previous statement... as I've said, I know where the word of God is found

And his ironical intent seems good at first, but he "addeth and taketh away", from the words spoken by God.

That is simply not true... but again, what I consider the word of God is not the same as what you do...

And I rarely IF ever quote the OT because I believe that is from a false God

This is what He would say to this: "I do not add or take away anything, because I accept the gospels. Only they are words spoken by God." and then he'd add a smiley face.

Good to see you're catching on... Heres your smiley face >>------------>

So I try to keep my judgement to myself, because people are to trivial and argumentative.

lol... and back to the start...

You've already made your judgement.... I am a deceiver... remember?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Did they now all-of-a-sudden become trinitarians? I think they did.

That is an interesting theory... but that would mean the trinity at that time consisted of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus... and honestly I've never heard that version of the trinity before...

What is it that you think Paul said?

Just as I was talking about with NOTurTypical...

He said Jesus was Equal to God... Which Jesus did not say

When Jesus says 'The Father and I are one', he means "the same".
Now, the question would be, 'The same, in what way?'

I will give you my usual response to the "I and my Father are one" issue...

Jesus means the Essense of God is within him... He is the essence of his Father... Just as any child is the essence of his parents.

IF we consider the immaculate conception... His essence came directly from God unlike everyone else who is the essence of both earthly parents

reply to post by Akragon

Technically im not against it... Part of it is a nothing more then a good story to me... another part is the words sent directly from God.

I only use the gospels in my debates because of my previous statement... as I've said, I know where the word of God is found

What gives you the authority to determine that? What gives you the right to cherry pick?

I will give you my usual response to the "I and my Father are one" issue...

Jesus means the Essense of God is within him... He is the essence of his Father... Just as any child is the essence of his parents.

IF we consider the immaculate conception... His essence came directly from God unlike everyone else who is the essence of both earthly parents

Whose egg carried that essence?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Akragon

 

Technically im not against it... Part of it is a nothing more then a good story to me... another part is the words sent directly from God.

I only use the gospels in my debates because of my previous statement... as I've said, I know where the word of God is found

What gives you the authority to determine that? What gives you the right to cherry pick?

I do... I am free to do as I will...

And I don't cherry pick... I use 4 books and my quotes are always in the context of what is being spoken about

Do I really need to define what cherry picking is?

Whose egg carried that essence?

That's a silly question.... don't you know?

reply to post by Akragon


I think I called you a blasphemer before, too.

Like I said I "try" to keep my judgement to myself.

I accept you as another self, but still, I am human. My judgement is not impartial yet, i'll admit to it.

Also, you always manage to divert the attention to the thread to something like the OT or reincarnation.

reply to post by Akragon

That's a silly question.... don't you know?

If it's such a silly question, you must be double silly for forgetting to factor her ovaries into the question. Obviously Jesus was part Mary as well, and not just purely "God"s essence - as you implied. Unless the egg came from "God" too? Or have we stretched the story far enough?

Originally posted by Dispo
If Jesus is God, and God impregnated Mary, doesn't that mean Jesus impregnated his own mother?

Mary wasn't impregnated. God can make miracles, and so doesn't do things like man. Understand ? He allowed a miracle to occur.

The Turin shroud was tested, and believed to be fake- until recently the test piece previously used was found to be a highly contaminated test piece. It was actually a repaired piece of cloth, from the middle ages, sewn into the original, where damage had occurred. It also had plenty foreign DNA due to it being handled throughout the centuries, so was found to be unreliable.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Special permission was granted for destructive testing to determine carbon dating on a piece in the centre of the cloth, never tampered with, and the carbon dating came back as being first century. Infact scientists also admitted that only radiant energy could have been used in a burst of energy, to create the '3D' image the shroud gives off !!

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

So did the death mask cloth, the 'Oviedo Cloth', put over Jesus' head when crucified.
The two relics were separated, but when both tests showed the same dating and even the same DNA from the blood, it was a match.
Ok, so what has this to do with Virgin birth ? well, since no human impregnation occured, but a miracle, it would be scientifically fair to say Jesus should be born without a Y chromosome, which comes form a male.

In human beings, as in all mammals, sex/gender is determined by the XY chromosomes. The XY sex chromosomes are different in shape and size from each other. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). A male child gets his Y chromosome from his biological father. The combination of two Y chromosomes is always lethal in humans.

The human Y chromosome showing the SRY gene
Within the Y chromosome is a gene, SRY, that is the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome. Once SRY is activated, cells create testosterone and anti-müllerian hormone to turn the genderless sex organs into male. With females, their cells excrete estrogen, driving the body down the female pathway.

In his book, The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday, 2007), Tulane University physicist Dr. Frank J. Tipler reasons that if the Gospels’ account of the virgin birth is true, then Jesus’ DNA makeup would have no Y chromosome because he did not have a human father, but instead have two X chromosomes. However, since Jesus was clearly male, he must have the SRY gene. But the SRY gene, instead of being in the Y chromosome, was inserted into a location where it is not normally found – inside one of the two X chromosomes imparted from Mary, his mother.

And that’s exactly what a team of Italian researchers found.

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...

The Turin Shroud data show 107 (106+1) but not trace of a 112 base pair gene. The Oviedo Cloth data show 105 (106-1) but no trace of a 112 base pair. The X chromosome is present, but there is no evidence of a Y chromosome. This is the expected signature of … virgin birth, the XX male generated by an SRY inserted into an X chromosome. It is not what would be expected of a standard male.

Other explanations are possible. The DNA analyzed could be entirely contamination from people who later touched the Shroud and the Cloth. But we have witnesses that men touched the two samples also, and it seems incredible that no trace of male contamination would be seen…. Another possibility is that the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth are fakes and that the fakes used real blood from males they knew were born of virgins. This possibility, in my opinion, has zero probability.

The DNA data thus support the virgin birth hypothesis. The DNA data supporting a virgin birth also support the hypothesis that both the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth are genuine.

So much for what Rudolf Bultmann, a leading theologian of the 1930s, once sneeringly said: “Myths [like the Virgin Birth] are difficult to believe in these days of electric lights.”

In the end, what is most intriguing about the Shroud and the Ovieto Cloth is that their characteristics and true nature are increasingly revealed as human beings grow more in knowledge and our science becomes increasingly advanced and sophisticated. Instead of science showing the Shroud and the Ovieto Cloth to be fakes, it is with science that their miraculous character is revealed.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by Akragon

 

I think I called you a blasphemer before, too.

Like I said I "try" to keep my judgement to myself.

I accept you as another self, but still, I am human. My judgement is not impartial yet, i'll admit to it.

Also, you always manage to divert the attention to the thread to something like the OT or reincarnation.

No worries... I've been called every name in the book by Christians of all denominations... Im quite used to it, and it doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't really see what you mean by your last statement... perhaps you might explain?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Akragon

 

That's a silly question.... don't you know?

If it's such a silly question, you must be double silly for forgetting to factor her ovaries into the question. Obviously Jesus was part Mary as well, and not just purely "God"s essence - as you implied. Unless the egg came from "God" too? Or have we stretched the story far enough?

I didn't feel the need to mention her ovaries... I honestly thought that was obvious...

Mary was just another woman, chosen to be the barer of the son of God... Jesus was the essence of God, and mary... again, I thought that was rather obvious

reply to post by Akragon


If I did I would not be on topic. although about 75% or posts in this thread are offtopic.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by Akragon

 

If I did I would not be on topic. although about 75% or posts in this thread are offtopic.

IF you can't explain it, then its just a false statement...

How exactly do I divert attention towards reincarnation or the OT... I would only do that if the subject was already being discussed

It would be pointless to divert attention to said topics if they have nothing to do with the topic at hand..

Originally posted by Akragon

I didn't feel the need to mention her ovaries... I honestly thought that was obvious...

Mary was just another woman, chosen to be the barer of the son of God... Jesus was the essence of God, and mary... again, I thought that was rather obvious

Mary was more than just a "vessel", she bore a similar suffering to Jesus. She was the Co-Redeemer Who helped to expiate sins on behalf of mankind. see this thread Consolation in Tears

reply to post by Akragon

Mary was just another woman, chosen to be the barer of the son of God... Jesus was the essence of God, and mary... again, I thought that was rather obvious

Such a fantastic description. I mean, you could have left her just a little bit of dignity, but obviously the woman doesn't deserve any recognition, right? She was just a fancy petri dish.

reply to post by backcase

Mary was more than just a "vessel", she bore a similar suffering to Jesus. She was the Co-Redeemer Who helped to expiate sins on behalf of mankind.

Why? Why couldn't he come down himself? Why did he have to send an avatar? Why isn't this "God" dude serving as king right now? Why does he have to do any of this from so far away? There's no need for him to keep his distance, is there?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


*sigh*

I have nothing against mary... The point was she is human like the rest of us...

You're both just arguing for the sake of argument...