Jesus presents Himself as God

reply to post by windword

No it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

Also, early church historians attributed the book of Revelation to John the apostle as well.

Justin Martyr [Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308] (a.d. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work, the prophecy of the millennium of the saints, to be followed by the general resurrection and judgment. This testimony of Justin is referred to also by Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.18]. Justin Martyr, in the early part of the second century, held his controversy with Trypho, a learned Jew, at Ephesus, where John had been living thirty or thirty-five years before: he says that “the Revelation had been given to John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ.”

carm.org...

The Apostle John is the author of the Book of Revelation. He wrote it when he was about 92 years old, while a prisoner of Rome on the remote desert penal colony of Patmos, an island in the Aegean Sea.

www.bibleprobe.com...

John was one of the first disciples chosen. He was an elder in the early church and helped spread the gospel message. He is credited with writing the Gospel of John; the letters 1, 2, and 3 John; and the book of Revelation.

christianity.about.com...

reply to post by Deetermined

The Apostle John is the author of the Book of Revelation. He wrote it when he was about 92 years old, while a prisoner of Rome on the remote desert penal colony of Patmos, an island in the Aegean Sea.

There is no evidence that there was ever a "penal colony" on Patmos.
John says in Revelation that he was on Patmos, without explaining exactly why he was there.
There is also no evidence that Revelation was written at that late a date.
You can look at what is attributed to Irenaeus about the name of whoever John was talking about when he was describing the name and number of The Beast (the infamous 666). Irenaeus was just as easily been saying that Diocletian was the "beast", rather than that John wrote at the time of Diocletian.

The difference between the writing styles is interesting but one could just as easily conclude that Revelation was written by the "real" John, and the Gospel being written by an anonymous "beloved disciple".

reply to post by Deetermined


Regardless of who did or didn't write Revelations, they are not the words of Jesus, but the words of some eccentric old man having hallucinations.

At any rate, how can you argue with this, without quoting contradictory scripture not in the gospels?

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

reply to post by windword

windword

Regardless of who did or didn't write Revelations, they are not the words of Jesus, but the words of some eccentric old man having hallucinations.

Are you for real? All of The Gospels are written by witnesses and not the actual Jesus.

A angel told John of Patmos that God told Jesus that the world is going to end and that Jesus will return so all had to know.

Of course, I am being facetious

reply to post by arpgme


I know, I know, LOL

In actuality, I'm arguing from a place of cognitive dissidence, because I'm even not sure that Jesus really even said any of the things the Bible says he said.

But, I do know that the Bible doesn't have him saying that he is God.

reply to post by windword

But, I do know that the Bible doesn't have him saying that he is God.

This is what happens when you have no emotional ties to false dogma, you have the ability to discover the
truth by reading scriptures. I can easily explain all those quoted scriptures that appear to support the trinity, but I won't waste the keystrokes as people never believe it anyways. Then I quote dozens of scriptures that support the separateness of Jesus and God, and people reply explaining away those scriptures, it's a hamster wheel debate.

reply to post by windword

But, I do know that the Bible doesn't have him saying that he is God.

That is because in the Greek of the New Testament, God is called Theos, as a specific person who is God.

Jesus is of an existence that is generically "god", but that would not come out right if you just wrote it out like that in Greek.
Jesus fills a role previously occupied by the Old Testament character, YHWH, but you could not just say so because this is the New Testament, where by definition that old god has been made obsolete, and replaced by a universal god headed up by the person, God, who is the father of Jesus.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I understand that angle, "The king is dead! Long live the King!", from a Christian perspective, but the Jews, who's God YHWH is, don't agree. To them, YHWH is alive and well.

There are some Jews who will consider that Jesus may represent, in an esoteric way, and expression of the 5 letter name of God, Elohim, which allows for the plurality of the "God head" but not for the trinity.

I would be interested in seeing the Greek translation that you refer to using the word "Theos". Does this translation have Jesus calling himself "Theos", and how does that word transalte?

"Christ", the Greek concept, has been around a lot longer than the followers of Jesus, and never represented the One True God, but a "path" to God, or a God like person.

reply to post by windword

"Christ", the Greek concept, has been around a lot longer than the followers of Jesus, and never represented the One True God, but a "path" to God, or a God like person.

I realized a few years ago when I first started studying Greek that the New Testament is unapologetically Greek.
I had studied Hebrew for a couple years before that, so I had a really negative reaction to the "pagan" nature of the NT.
I got over that eventually, and had to accept that really Judaism is closer to fitting the definition of "pagan'.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I can easily explain all those quoted scriptures that appear to support the trinity, but I won't waste the keystrokes as people never believe it anyways.

Yeah, sure you can.

John 14

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

So, which is it? The Comforter (Holy Spirit) comes to comfort or Jesus "will come to you" so not to leave you comfortless?

reply to post by jmdewey60

There is no evidence that there was ever a "penal colony" on Patmos.
John says in Revelation that he was on Patmos, without explaining exactly why he was there.
There is also no evidence that Revelation was written at that late a date.
You can look at what is attributed to Irenaeus about the name of whoever John was talking about when he was describing the name and number of The Beast (the infamous 666). Irenaeus was just as easily been saying that Diocletian was the "beast", rather than that John wrote at the time of Diocletian.

The difference between the writing styles is interesting but one could just as easily conclude that Revelation was written by the "real" John, and the Gospel being written by an anonymous "beloved disciple".

A. Only one of the 12 disciples was named John and Matt.4:21 identifies him as the brother of James and son of Zebedee. In the Gospel of John he referred to himself only as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This makes sense if he wrote it, but not if he didn’t. The early church believed he wrote it and all other evidence agrees as well. Iraneus (140-203) Clement of Alexandria (155-215) Tertullian (150-222) and Origen (185-253) all stated that John, the son of Zebedee, wrote the gospel and the three letters that bear his name.

The early Church also believed that the Book of Revelation was written by John, which is why some call him John the Revelator. In the 3rd Century it was first suggested that another John might have been the real author of Revelation, but events of John’s life, such as his imprisonment on Patmos, the fact that he was well known to the seven churches to whom the book was written , and his reputation as a deeply religious Jewish believer provide overwhelming evidence of his authorship of this and all of the books that are credited to him.

gracethrufaith.com...

This link has a good point. What other John could possibly have been so well known to the seven churches in Asia?

reply to post by Deetermined

This makes sense if he wrote it, but not if he didn’t. The early church believed he wrote it and all other evidence agrees as well.

You need to read serious scholarly books to see what the experts think, rather than relying on what has to be a biased blog.
The evidence points to someone other than John the brother of James, son of Zebedee, as being the author of the so-called gospel of John.
That gospel never names all twelve disciples, anyway, so it is not that odd that it does not mention John in it.
Those "early christian" sources were just repeating things that they had read from someone else, and are often factually wrong when their statements can be checked for accuracy.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Let's face it, for every source that you can find claiming that Revelation wasn't written by John the apostle, I can show you a source that says he did. It's pointless.

reply to post by Deetermined

Let's face it, for every source that you can find claiming that Revelation wasn't written by John the apostle, I can show you a source that says he did. It's pointless.

You've got it backwards.
I am saying that the Apostle John wrote Revelation, and that evidence does not support John writing the so-called gospel of John.

What I am disputing is the claim that John wrote Revelation either when he was in his nineties, or wrote it in the nineties AD.

windword
reply to post by arpgme

 

I know, I know, LOL

In actuality, I'm arguing from a place of cognitive dissidence, because I'm even not sure that Jesus really even said any of the things the Bible says he said.

But, I do know that the Bible doesn't have him saying that he is God.

windword,

All the miraculous points to Christ, that is outside the Bible. Look at the WELL KNOWN science tested
miracles. God gives you a sign for you to believe in Him with the testimony of miracles over the last 2000 years.

The Shroud of Turin (newest Italian study, man can't yet produce the UV rays it took to make the
marks on the Shroud)

The Tilma of Guadalupe (Science cannot name the substance/material that made the image on the Tilma)

Padre Pio's Stigmata, the wounds of Chirst ( testimony of hundreds of miracles because of Pio's intercession)

reply to post by colbe

colbe
All the miraculous points to Christ, that is outside the Bible. Look at the WELL KNOWN science tested
miracles. God gives you a sign for you to believe in Him with the testimony of miracles over the last 2000 years.

The Shroud of Turin (newest Italian study, man can't yet produce the UV rays it took to make the
marks on the Shroud)

The Tilma of Guadalupe (Science cannot name the substance/material that made the image on the Tilma)

Padre Pio's Stigmata, the wounds of Chirst ( testimony of hundreds of miracles because of Pio's intercession)

So because we don't know that means "God did it?". Why not aliens? Either way, it is just an assumption. If we didn't know the process of rain we would just be saying "God did it!" or "Zeus did it!".

arpgme
reply to post by colbe

 

colbe
All the miraculous points to Christ, that is outside the Bible. Look at the WELL KNOWN science tested
miracles. God gives you a sign for you to believe in Him with the testimony of miracles over the last 2000 years.

The Shroud of Turin (newest Italian study, man can't yet produce the UV rays it took to make the
marks on the Shroud)

The Tilma of Guadalupe (Science cannot name the substance/material that made the image on the Tilma)

Padre Pio's Stigmata, the wounds of Chirst ( testimony of hundreds of miracles because of Pio's intercession)

So because we don't know that means "God did it?". Why not aliens? Either way, it is just an assumption. If we didn't know the process of rain we would just be saying "God did it!" or "Zeus did it!".

apgme,

Hi, you are so right, science looked, studied and couldn't figure the "means." Zeus is pagan God. I shared all three are related to Jesus Christ. And another, they point to the faith. Roman Catholicism.

Remember, remember friend when God "awakens" the world.


love,

colbe

reply to post by UnaChispa


Actually, Adam, Michael and Jesus are all interrelated here and Jesus becomes one with his Higher Self AND Source/God. For our Higher Self's Higher Selfs' Higher Self's goes to the Infinite Source of all consciousness, that which we call God, the Vine, of which we are all infinite parts of infinity, the branches.

And the Christ is our intercessor, or Higher Self.

We go from being the son/daughter of man to the Son/Daughter of God, by walking in his footsteps.

He is the only outer example where both the true metaphoric meaning of the scripture, ie the pure gnostic meanings (read genesis 32 30 and do so slowly, perhaps you'll understand why the vatican has the pinecone statue, though theirs is green and unopened to try and suppress the progression of people).

But Jesus/Yeshua's outer example is the only one that is alligned with the gnosis. ie. inner meaning and outer meaning in allignment. If you follow in his footsteps, only, and serve others with unconditional love, be selfless and giving and grown up, seeking out those in need and befriending the "sinner", Love and Peace, you'll access the inner.

Thats why the controllers don't like Christianity. Oops they made a mistake, in packaging up the gnostic scripts and trying to make people stop seeking but conform to their authority, but well mannered way, so they wouldn't need police forces to control a rebellious crowd, if they could only make people OK with their poverty and suffering and slavery. Well out of Christian ideals: Common Law, Democracy, Social Programs, and Equality emerged. For even the fundamental levels are a match with the inner meaning of the scripture, which is how we Become and grow up ourselves.

Yeah, Gnosticism is heresy, not of God.

Sharing one of the paragraphs on the Holy Trinity from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85