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.
I think things are a bit more complicated than you allow for.
I'm not denying that there are . . .
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
I think things are a bit more complicated than you allow for.
I'm not denying that there are . . .
Originally posted by jmdewey
He wasn't saying that he is giving it right then, so it would have been pointing forward to where he was given over to be brutally killed by the occupying forces.
Originally posted by jmdewey
I'm missing what your step of logic is that gets you from blood to water.
Originally posted by jmdewey
Part of it can be taken literally, where he says, "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
He literally gave his flesh.
John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
John 6:53
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
The Gnostic “Gospel of Philip”
Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
No, it says that the Church shares the same dispositions as both the Father and Son.
It clearly mentions that the Church shares the same disposition as the Father, which contradicts what you said above.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is where the contradiction is coming from, your personal interpretation. How can the Son only share the disposition of the Father when the text clearly says the Church does as well? How can we not become the Father (God) when it clearly says that we can become him (Father)?
If the Church, Son, and Father all share the same disposition, it goes to reason that they are all the same entity, which is God, who is One and apart from whom nothing else exists.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm not showing any resistance, I see it as you showing resistance. It says that the Son is the Totalities and that the Totalities are the Son, it clearly supports my reasoning.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
We will have to leave this discussion for another thread though, once I get around to making it because I realize I have derailed the topic. Sorry for that brother.
I think it is talking about accepting Jesus in general, which includes the fact that he gave it his all, fully committed.
Plus, if it’s talking about accepting a sacrifice, then why put it across as two elements…i.e. blood and flesh…? That wouldn’t make any sense IMO…
The "message" is the manna from heaven that gives life, and extending the metaphor, he says his message is bread that sustains you, then he says the bread is his flesh.
Jesus flesh, is his “word” that he speaks, which means He's giving His message (word) “for the life of the world”. Which brings us right back, to it being His message which saves.
A message and then a message about the message bringer.
You come to know God through the word, you take it in (by eating it) to yourself, and then after you believe, you receive his Holy Spirit (blood). Which means, it all leads back to the message, which saves.
Was Jesus lying when he said "get up your sins are forgiven"? Because the blood had not been shed yet.
OptimusSubprime
reply to post by zardust
Was Jesus lying when he said "get up your sins are forgiven"? Because the blood had not been shed yet.
No, He wasn't lying. Jesus had the authority to forgive sin, as I stated earlier in this thread. See Matthew 9:1-8
The Greek word used is dunamis
... It has to do with the life of the spirit flowing out of him. When the woman who had a bleeding disorder touched him he felt power go out. ...
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
The Greek word used is dunamis
... It has to do with the life of the spirit flowing out of him. When the woman who had a bleeding disorder touched him he felt power go out. ...
biblehub.com...
which is physical power.
That seems like kind of the opposite of spirit to me, as far as describing what was "flowing".
The spirit would have been an indwelling that didn't go in or out at random moments but stayed with him.
I put that link in my post because it gives the definition of Dunamis as physical power.
Dunamis has nothing to do with any physical power IMO.
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
I put that link in my post because it gives the definition of Dunamis as physical power.
Dunamis has nothing to do with any physical power IMO.
It looks like you are just making up your own definitions to suite your theory.
Her flow was a physical condition.
Did some mechanical power flow out of Jesus into the woman?
I think you are inventing usages and also making a straw man by throwing in the word "force" as if I was talking about something you can measure, like temperature and pressure.
The Dunamis of the holy spirit seen in the apostles wasn't literal dynamite or any physical force.
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
Her flow was a physical condition.
Did some mechanical power flow out of Jesus into the woman?I think you are inventing usages and also making a straw man by throwing in the word "force" as if I was talking about something you can measure, like temperature and pressure.
The Dunamis of the holy spirit seen in the apostles wasn't literal dynamite or any physical force.
edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
That's a nice little theory but that is all it is.
Life flowing out of him. That life is the life in the spirit. That is what healed the woman.
You were giving as a reference something that is a physical thing, which is a verse in the Bible, which is made up of words which each has a specific meaning.
Just like your throwing the definition of Dunamis at me as though that's what I meant.
jmdewey60
reply to post by zardust
That's a nice little theory but that is all it is.
Life flowing out of him. That life is the life in the spirit. That is what healed the woman.
Life is something that is spiritual, where it means eternal life and it comes through a truth about how to live, which only God can provide and that is through the agency of the spirit that comes to us through Jesus but originates from God as part of God.
The word holy in the New Testament is a Greek word that started out meaning God, so God is holy by definition, and Jesus is filled with a quality of holiness to the point of being virtually God, and that divine wisdom of Jesus we have access to spiritually, meaning in our inner thoughts.You were giving as a reference something that is a physical thing, which is a verse in the Bible, which is made up of words which each has a specific meaning.
Just like your throwing the definition of Dunamis at me as though that's what I meant.
If you choose to ignore those meanings, then I feel it is important to the truth of things to point it out.edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jmdewey
The "message" is the manna from heaven that gives life, and extending the metaphor, he says his message is bread that sustains you, then he says the bread is his flesh.
Originally posted by jmdewey
He himself is given and then is something to be broken, as part of what makes it capable of providing us with life.
Originally posted by jmdewey
An actual "word" was something that has always been there, as in John 1:1. What was needed to really get it across is having it instilled in people, starting with John the Baptist, then Jesus, and then the Apostles.
Originally posted by jmdewey
A message and then a message about the message bringer.
The person is the core of the message since just what he was talking about was really nothing new but was ignored for a lack of focus.
The new thing that he was saying was about himself, where to come to God, we come to Jesus because he represents God in his person.
I think that we really know just about nothing about who Jesus called his heavenly father.
Like I was saying to another poster, God isn’t holding against people, as to whether they’re Trinitarian or non-Trinitarians…IMO
jmdewey60
reply to post by Joecroft
I think that we really know just about nothing about who Jesus called his heavenly father.
Like I was saying to another poster, God isn’t holding against people, as to whether they’re Trinitarian or non-Trinitarians…IMO
I think that this thing, God, is a lot more complex than most people imagine.
Understanding Jesus I think is the closest thing that we will achieve in trying to understand God (at least in this life), and I think that is the point of the Gospel of John.edit on 16-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
The balance would be between God and man and it happens at Jesus.
I don't understand how God judges and maintains balance, but I do believe He does.