It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My God

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2021 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: Sheshbazzar

The translator and the translated are one just like math shows a measurement's body is made up of measures: 1+2=3. (1,2,3,+,= are all themselves measures / concepts).

So really yes Jesus and Father are one but so is The Spirit and Father and The Spirit and Jesus.

e.g. These words are the image of my conception of my will [where my will is to conceive the words so that by taking in these words you might conceive my will to explain the Trinity].

words/image = Son
conception = Father
will/spirit = Holy Ghost

God the Father is translating his will (The Spirit) thereby begetting the Son.

Look in Genesis at how we were made of earth and then made into living-souls by being given breath:

Our bodies were made of earth (that's the concept) and then they were given breath which made us into living-souls (living-concepts / conception).

I think what is earthly is made first of an earthly body and then given a spirit body. But what is spiritual was made first with a spiritual body then given an earthly body. I think it is sort of like how these words first come from my spirit but when you receive them you receive them in reverse order by first taking in my words which you use as food for conception - you take in the body to conceive the spirit, to have awareness, unless you are the one producing the fruit / body.
edit on 3/9/2021 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 9 2021 @ 04:17 AM

originally posted by: Sheshbazzar

All shall know God? That is what the post in French says, men, sooner or later (the 2nd death is metempsychosis, not nirvana) are to know God, but to know God is to be God for only I knows I.

Yeah, repeating the interpretation that 'knowing something' means 'being that something' doesn't make it any more convincing to me. The Hebrew and Greek words that were translated into different grammatical forms of "knowing", have different shades of meaning determined by the context, but none of them mean 'to be' whatever a person 'knows'.

Also, I'd like to point out that people might not know themselves as well as you might think when you say "for only I knows I". Because:

“The heart is more treacherous* [Or “deceitful.”] than anything else and is desperate.* [Or possibly, “incurable.”]

Who can know it?

I, Jehovah, am searching the heart,

Examining the innermost thoughts,* [Or “deepest emotions.” Lit., “kidneys.”]

To give to each one according to his ways,

According to the fruitage of his works.”
(Jeremiah 17:9,10)

When saying, “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30) did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ. This is alluded to in the 2nd video of my previous comment where John 17:21,22 is quoted to remind those who believe that Jesus is the same individual as Almighty God, Jehovah God, "the only true God" mentioned and distinguished from His Son, Jesus Christ, at John 17:3, of that (remind those who believe that Jesus is the same individual ... of that; sorry my description of "those who believe that" became a bit long).

Yes, Jesus is the Christ, the Word (as in spokesperson) of God and the Wisdom of God (in a special symbolic sense, not literally), but you lost me after that. Getting too weird and far-removed from the statements in the Bible about the individual that later became known as Jesus Christ and the other individual known as God (thinking of Almighty God, Jehovah God, the Father of Jesus, the other angels and all of mankind).

Blind faith that is not supported by reason or evidence is not the type of faith encouraged by the Bible. Nor is it healthy to get the 2 confused or conflate the 2 entirely different types of faith, as bible critics, atheists, agnostics and philosophical naturalists have been doing for a while; with great brainwashing success on others who now actually think it's the same thing and always think of "faith" as if it's the same thing as blind faith, i.e. credulity. True faith, as encouraged by the Bible, has nothing to do with credulity, a willingness to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence or reason; gullibility. True faith comes from the evidence* and logically sound reasons to believe something. Again, when I'm using the term "true faith", I am talking about the type of faith that the Bible encourages. (*: 'comes from the evidence', i.e. is a result of becoming aware of the evidence for something, and understanding it, what it is evidence for and why, based on logically sound reasoning)

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ (gods) is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1. But not similar to how the word is used to refer to the gods of the nations, cause in that case, it's referring to idol gods. Nor is it speaking of all men at Psalm 82:6, it is only referring to those judges in Israel who were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly, Jesus is also a god in his capacity as representative of and spokesman for Jehovah (as also signified in his title "the Word" at John 1:1 and elsewhere). And in his prehuman existence he was a god/a divine being because he was a spirit being, just like the angels are referred to in the Bible as ʼelo·himʹ (gods) because they are spirits/spirit beings, i.e. heavenly beings (Psalm 8:5). See definition 8 in light of the mention of the word "spirit" under definition 7 (but don't take definition 7 seriously, it's loaded with bad theology concerning the myth of the immortal soul) in the video at the end of this comment, which speaks about "heavenly beings". Heavenly beings are spirits/spirit beings, as opposed to the physical beings that populate this earth. The video explains, as it explains the different meanings/definitions for the Hebrew words that have been translated to "God", "god" or "gods" (and "angels" in the LXX, a.k.a. the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures a.k.a. the "Old Testament").

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.​—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

edit on 9-3-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 9 2021 @ 02:18 PM
a reply to: whereislogic

We and I will be glad to answer, first "to know is to be."

Take that screwdriver, unscrew a screw. What has just happened? Your arms/hands are, quite evidently, two serpents, while handling the screwdriver they managed to unscrew the screw: they were, as a matter of fact, the screwdriver.

They had the screwdriver in their mouth, they spoke the screwdriver, they ate the screwdriver, they saw the screwdriver, they were the screwdriver.

To eat an apple is to think that apple: apple in mouth of upside-down head is ruby in head's front-head. Word of God sung in mouth is Word of God engraved on forehead.

To eat an apple is to mouth-see that apple, to see an apple is to eye-taste that apple: eyes are mouths, eyebrows are moustaches. Eyes differentiate, distinguish things: the seen is a masticated whole. (There is no outer world: it is the eyeballs' taste.)

Words are substitutes for fact: a consummated apple is followed by a burp saying "apple". You either speak or eat: Когда я ем, я глух и нем. To confess a sin is to erase that sin.

To know is not to do: mathematicians or metaphysicians abhor manual labor: "The [intuitionist's mental] construction itself is an art, its application to the world an evil parasite." (L. E. J. Brouwer.) The knowledge of what copulation/intercourse really is inhibits one from exercising it*. Again, word/knowledge is a substitute for fact/work/existence therefore I say that to know X is to be X: you are X, you have annihilated X in you, you have substituted yourself for X.

Wisdom is pure vacuum (but so are invisible words). Power is the wisdom's exercise, the wisdom's expenditure, the wisdom's loss by suction: vain wisdom being emptiness (for knowledge "puffeth up", says the Apostle) will "empty" itself by sucking everything into itself. The attractive power.

Money is vacuum: to sell a good is to sacrifice it and be repaid with the smell of its sweet, vacuous aroma. Money is power: one inflicts one's will by disbursing one's capital.

Take a cube, octasect it. The total surface of the 8 subcubes equals 6 + 2 * 3 which is twice that of the original cube. Mouth-analyze, eye-masticate again the parts, continue the pulverization of the cube: the volume stays constant, the surface expands exponentially, doubles from one step to the next. The 3D cube is ground to fine 2D dust, it has been superficialized, monetized, virtualized, sacrificed, all of its secrets, its innards are naked before your greedy eyes. You have to vivisect it to know it: eyes see only surfaces. You have substituted the knowledge, the insight into the cube, the essence of the cube, for the cube. So either knowledge of the cube, or the cube in front of you. If you know the cube's innards you're the cube, if you weren't the cube you would see it, but lo, a desert of fine dust. You're the cube, the infinitesimal cubelets' dust is moistened in you, synthesized into the original cube. Please notice that you don't see yourself, you are yourself.

Truth in a language cannot be defined in that language or else it is contradictory. If you could define a predicate for truth in the language then, having formulated "this sentence is not true" you would, owing to the axioms about truth, reach a contradiction: if it were true then it wouldn't, if it weren't it would, so it can neither be true nor false, but whatever the proposition, either it or its negation must be true.

Why this apparent digression? Because for there to be a truth predicate for the lang., the truth values of all of the prop. of the language must be known, the language must lay flat naked, the rock must be pulverized.

* Cf. French post in this thread.
edit on 9-3-2021 by Sheshbazzar because: Gödel's "17 Gen r".

<< 1   >>

log in