How are the Titles, ‘Father’, and ‘Son’, defined in the scriptures - in relation to Spirit and Flesh

[rational experiences]

No humans alive as the correct human advice means no books no theories either.

The reason a human should accept the truth is that one day we will die. All of us own natural death.

Only because we don't all die in exactly the one same moment does a human in science think self correct. As a theist machine owner not any natural state.

Who processes machines can artificially change natural. I cause a new type of created status I must be a God.

And you are not.

The theme a God is greater says a theist for science statements.... is in control and more powerful than I am. Rationally personalities get titillated in their minds thinking about it. As a human behaviour......when it relates to I want it.

I will find it says science the god...change it control it as that God.

So you have to ask the scientist so you believe you are the God yourself then. As your organisation in human life controlled all living outcomes yourselves. Your idea control says I believe in self power human. Yet claim control by book teaching was with God.

As control in reality is then your fixed term machine body. Shifting thought to machine and want control then says then applied machine forced conversions to natural. Controlled just by my choices. And he believes.

So he says consciously he is greater than God.

God he says is fixed as a fixed state. Shifts his first belief of a God existing in his mind. Then says now my machine is a Fixed state.

So if we say God is everything. You claim you are researching the grail or substance of God which you will by machine status as various machines all human controlled then convert.

What he says is the one original first substance. His idea nothing will remain the same after.

Notice his idea includes nothing will cause the change not to remain.

As you want God to be your new resource.

Science then says God hence is relatively what he wants and thinks God is as his advice is just science. Arguable to a bible thesis about human life sacrificed.

So not until you do an assessed appraisal of said science community do you see your lying human brother.

Modern life experiments the Jesus event not activated. New machine he says is like old. Does not own old machines. New science inter related with atmospheric changes differently as humans in science are changing gods substances dusts.

As I created radiation as he does in released natural conversions. His psyche says I created radiations presence release in a big bang.

None of you seem to see him for his lies.

Atmosphere did not change like the Jesus event did so he says he is not yet successful.

Reason wasn't using his modern machines or power plant in the olden days the exact reason.

Earths atmosphere reacting in a variation to.old science conditions.

 

[oldbadger]

Please, What does ‘Deposition of Mark’, mean?

A Deposition is any Statement or 'Declaration in writing' made by a person, Apostle Mark's gospel is a deposition, or most of it anyway.
So are the other three...... Luke even referred to the gospels as such, thus:-
Luke {1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, {1:2} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; {1:3} It seemed good to me also,

Please, too, What is a ‘Deist’?

My description, thus:- Belief that everything and every force and anything else is a part of God, a God so immensely vast that it is quite unaware of this little planet and anything on it. But God's absolute power is vested in Nature.... Mother Nature. All will follow when Nature so orders it.

Could you not have responded more fully to my questions to you?

Soapy..... This is just my opinion, but if you want people to really connect with what you want to tell them, then you need to communicate in 'Small Bite-Sized Chunks of Information'. People like me cannot take in more than a little at a time.

 

[Soapy]

A Deposition is any Statement or 'Declaration in writing' made by a person, Apostle Mark's gospel is a deposition, or most of it anyway.
So are the other three...... Luke even referred to the gospels as such, thus:-
Luke {1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, {1:2} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; {1:3} It seemed good to me also,

So what is it that I said that Mark would disagree with?

[Deist]… My description, thus:- Belief that everything and every force and anything else is a part of God, a God so immensely vast that it is quite unaware of this little planet and anything on it. But God's absolute power is vested in Nature.... Mother Nature. All will follow when Nature so orders it.

You do know that the word, ‘Nature’ is just a squeamish way of saying ‘God’? Instead of ‘God did this or God did that, regarding living things and their ‘Natur[e]al’ behaviour, the word ‘Nature’ was substituted so reading, ‘Nature did this or nature did that!’. Physicist, Biologists, Chemists… Scientist… in general… don’t believe in GOD so they have to have a way of saying how there is a ‘natural’ order or pattern to the world. The cycle of life, for instance… they can’t explain how this beautifully crafted system could EVOLVE NATUR[E]ALLY with NO APPARENT intelligence linking them all together. You know, like it only appears that Bees and Ants have no Leader… yet we know that there is a ‘Head intelligence driving their behaviour: the ‘Queen Ant/Bee’… So they call it ‘Nature’ - short for ‘Natural [Biological/Chemical/Physical] Behaviour ‘.

All living things have a Spirit, a driving intelligent force that determines the behaviour of the entity in the world. Trees, for instance, ‘learn’ to develop a defence against damaging insect attack or bacteria, unless these are overwhelming. Same with even fungus and small as bacteria. Plants ‘seek’ out light or advantages against other plants and animals: I like [hate] the ones that fool weed killer devices by hiding their main body below the ground so when their tops are hacked away they continue growing back later. Battle lost! So we, more intelligent humans, dig out the ‘brains’ of the plant and dash them on the compost heap: battle won!

Soapy..... This is just my opinion, but if you want people to really connect with what you want to tell them, then you need to communicate in 'Small Bite-Sized Chunks of Information'. People like me cannot take in more than a little at a time.

So I’m supposed to limit my deposition according to whom I don’t know can’t hack righteousness and truth in fullness?

I write as I am inspired. And I am highly inspired!

Suggestion: Pick one point from what I say and respond to that. Trinitarians do that all the time as a way of avoiding answering difficult questions and assertions put to them which positively discredit their fallacy.

 

[oldbadger]

So what is it that I said that Mark would disagree with?

Most of what you have said, the Gospel of Mark would disagree with, in my opinion. Soapy.
I don't think you actually know the story of Jesus and disciples.

Example:- From what you have learned and know, what did Jesus and the disciples actually do, In Jerusalem and the Temple, on the first day of that last week, the week that Jesus was crucified. Can you tell me what they did on that first day of the last week in the Temple?

The answer only needs one sentence, I think, so I'm not stretching you.

You do know that the word, ‘Nature’ is just a squeamish way of saying ‘God’?

I am a Deist, Soapy, so the word 'Nature' (for me) means the ruler on Earth, but not God, only a tiny part of God.

So I’m supposed to limit my deposition according to whom I don’t know can’t hack righteousness and truth in fullness?

I write as I am inspired. And I am highly inspired!

Write as much as you want, Soapy, and the World might read some of it.
Write in very short chunks of info and the World might read it all.
Who knows?

Suggestion: Pick one point from what I say and respond to that. Trinitarians do that all the time as a way of avoiding answering difficult questions and assertions put to them which positively discredit their fallacy.

I have already. I've pointed out that for me 'Nature' rules here, because God is too vast to even be aware of us.

But now you can try to answer my question:- What did Jesus and his disciples do during that first day of the last week, in Jerusalem and the Temple.

 

[Soapy]

Most of what you have said, the Gospel of Mark would disagree with, in my opinion. Soapy.
I don't think you actually know the story of Jesus and disciples.

Example:- From what you have learned and know, what did Jesus and the disciples actually do, In Jerusalem and the Temple, on the first day of that last week, the week that Jesus was crucified. Can you tell me what they did on that first day of the last week in the Temple?

The answer only needs one sentence, I think, so I'm not stretching you.


I am a Deist, Soapy, so the word 'Nature' (for me) means the ruler on Earth, but not God, only a tiny part of God.


Write as much as you want, Soapy, and the World might read some of it.
Write in very short chunks of info and the World might read it all.
Who knows?


I have already. I've pointed out that for me 'Nature' rules here, because God is too vast to even be aware of us.

But now you can try to answer my question:- What did Jesus and his disciples do during that first day of the last week, in Jerusalem and the Temple.

I asked you to provide evidence of what Mark would have disagreed with what I said. You must first respond to my request before you can ask your own question. Failure to do so would show you don’t have any evidence of counter value to what I said.

 

[oldbadger]

I asked you to provide evidence of what Mark would have disagreed with what I said. You must first respond to my request before you can ask your own question. Failure to do so would show you don’t have any evidence of counter value to what I said.

I didn't think that you could answer that simple question.

In my very first post to you I explained how in G-Mark Jesus referred to himself as 'son of man' which was an everyday term used by northern Jews when relating to themselves. All Jews were sons of the Father because they were all children of their God ... However John turned this in to Son of the Father for Jesus, meaning the only son of God.

 

[Soapy]

I didn't think that you could answer that simple question.

In my very first post to you I explained how in G-Mark Jesus referred to himself as 'son of man' which was an everyday term used by northern Jews when relating to themselves. All Jews were sons of the Father because they were all children of their God ... However John turned this in to Son of the Father for Jesus, meaning the only son of God.

What kind of answer is that. It wasn’t even a question you asked me. You do know the difference between a question and a statement, don’t you?

In any case, I have no difficulty nor opposition to Jesus nor the Jews using the term, ‘Son of Man’ or anyone using the term ‘Son of God’. So I hardly think that is something ‘Mark’ is disagrees with me!

‘Son of Man’ refers to his relationship to mankind - his humanity.

‘Son of God’ refers to him doing the works of the Father.

When Jesus says that he will return with the holy angels his Father has given him, he uses ‘Son of Man’… He is coming back to do HIS work of dispelling Satan, Sin, and Death.

When he says, ‘I only said God is my Father’ (‘Son of God’) Jesus GOES ON TO EXPLAIN what he meant:

• “If I am not doing the works of my Father then di not believe me!”

It is clear, concise, direct: ‘Son of God’ means “Doing the works the Father has set that person to do”.

Jesus called some of the Jews. ‘Sons of your Father. He was a liar from the beginning’… He was clearly referring to the fallen Angel who became known as ‘Satan’ (‘The opposer [to God]’). It is also apparent that this was because those Jews, Jesus accused, were doing ‘Satanic works’… ‘The works of their Satanic Father’!

I think you are barking up the wrong tree with your opposition to what I’m saying.

 

[rational experiences]

Human science inventive history.

Humans. Men. Adults. Men who have male babies as their own life continuance.

In science a man is denoted by body type as status of science. A penis. A father by sex.

Information. Science destroyed all life on earth once. Machine parts snap frozen inside fusion coal and rock form. Lots of artefacts found.

Science after the ice age know life of humans had returned and man remembered science. Tells you they heard the heavenly recording voice detailing advice and images.

So man once lived before and died. Life was destroyed.

So the water microbes that a bio life was using were ground evaporated putting man's image in the clouds.

Gone forever.

The fact that the atmosphere burnt and was changed water evaporation saved the spirit gases of the heavens.

So gods life spirit was saved. Gases.

Is a very old story.

Why Jesus is placed as advice and the ancient history is before CH gases that arose out of earths body. God. Earth Christ gases.

We live supported by the Christ heavens. We tell the story that jesus saved the heavenly body.

Man now only lives half a natural dna life. The rest was gone into clouds.

The loss of water oxygen microbes is skin blood bone health actually.

Our spirit water and our microbes in water and oxygen had been taken. The story told why we were no longer as healthy or perfect and equal as we once were.

How we were taught life was sacrificed. Science caused it.

Science summarised the status earth cycles it's evolution predictive future and cooling pressures. Said year 2012 was going to return health on earth by gases amassing via wandering asteroid star and pressures of gas mass to place water back to the ground.

We were awaiting that occurrence. Nuclear science disallowed our inheritance.

Our inheritance for bio life health is water oxygenated. Father to son inheritance in life is DNA returned. Human body healing.

DNA determines blood type cell type bone conditions a medical teaching.

God is not actually a father. God however by conditions allows for the presence of the human father by body.

O earth and it's stone gases and water supports life.

Thesis mother earth is the same type of stories as God and it's heavens.

Science says O planet of stone fusion. Gas heavens. Science.

Science says a father is a human adult as a man.

A man however cannot have a son by himself.

So the topic changed to what a human females mother body achieved.

Which discussed that the return of a human man's son also depended on her ovary health and healing. In her human womb status.

So it was a combined thesis change in life and DNA healing. Science topics in correct category.

 

[oldbadger]

What kind of answer is that. It wasn’t even a question you asked me.

I asked you a question, an easy one. 'What did Jesus and his disciples do in Jerusalem and the Temple on the first day there, that last week when he was crucified?'

In any case, I have no difficulty nor opposition to Jesus nor the Jews using the term, ‘Son of Man’ or anyone using the term ‘Son of God’. So I hardly think that is something ‘Mark’ is disagrees with me!

‘Son of Man’ refers to his relationship to mankind - his humanity.

‘Son of God’ refers to him doing the works of the Father.

Wrong.
Son of man refers to the individual who said that, rather like a person referring to themselves today as 'Yours truly'.
Son of God refers to any Jew of that time. They were all sons of their God.

When Jesus says that he will return with the holy angels his Father has given him, he uses ‘Son of Man’… He is coming back to do HIS work of dispelling Satan, Sin, and Death.

When he says, ‘I only said God is my Father’ (‘Son of God’) Jesus GOES ON TO EXPLAIN what he meant:

• “If I am not doing the works of my Father then di not believe me!”

It is clear, concise, direct: ‘Son of God’ means “Doing the works the Father has set that person to do”.

Now where did you get that from? Chapter/verse?

Jesus called some of the Jews. ‘Sons of your Father. He was a liar from the beginning’… He was clearly referring to the fallen Angel who became known as ‘Satan’ (‘The opposer [to God]’). It is also apparent that this was because those Jews, Jesus accused, were doing ‘Satanic works’… ‘The works of their Satanic Father’!

I think you are barking up the wrong tree with your opposition to what I’m saying.

You make stuff up, Soapy........ Jesus never did say the words 'Sons of your Father' anywhere in any of the gospels.
But if you can quote chapter and verse......... but you cannot.

Now......... what did Jesus and his do on the first day that they were in Jerusalem, that last week. ??

 

[moorea944]

I asked you a question, an easy one. 'What did Jesus and his disciples do in Jerusalem and the Temple on the first day there, that last week when he was crucified?'


Wrong.
Son of man refers to the individual who said that, rather like a person referring to themselves today as 'Yours truly'.
Son of God refers to any Jew of that time. They were all sons of their God.


Now where did you get that from? Chapter/verse?


You make stuff up, Soapy........ Jesus never did say the words 'Sons of your Father' anywhere in any of the gospels.
But if you can quote chapter and verse......... but you cannot.

Now......... what did Jesus and his do on the first day that they were in Jerusalem, that last week. ??

Jesus had to be the Son of God because no man left to himself had or could achieve spotless righteousness as required by God as the basis for forgiveness. Perfection was attained by Jesus because
1. he inherited from his father a unique capacity for spiritual things, and
2. he was given unhindered access to God and he chose to accept it. Sonship of the Father conveyed an insight, an intimacy with his God, an unequalled knowledge of what was in man, fitting him eninenty to be the Saviour - if only he chose to be so.

Sonship did not make him sinless, but made sinlessness possible.

He had to be the son of man in order to inherit the consequences of Adam's transgression, a weak and mortal nature prone to sin, so that he might condemn sin. He had to be tempted in all points like us and yet be sinless in order to be the Saviour. Sin could only be condemned by one possessing the same flesh wit its tendency to sin.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus had to be the Son of God because no man left to himself had or could achieve spotless righteousness as required by God as the basis for forgiveness. Perfection was attained by Jesus because
1. he inherited from his father a unique capacity for spiritual things, and
2. he was given unhindered access to God and he chose to accept it. Sonship of the Father conveyed an insight, an intimacy with his God, an unequalled knowledge of what was in man, fitting him eninenty to be the Saviour - if only he chose to be so.

Sonship did not make him sinless, but made sinlessness possible.

He had to be the son of man in order to inherit the consequences of Adam's transgression, a weak and mortal nature prone to sin, so that he might condemn sin. He had to be tempted in all points like us and yet be sinless in order to be the Saviour. Sin could only be condemned by one possessing the same flesh wit its tendency to sin.

Hello moorea944,
Please show your source for those claims.
The way that I read the gospels,
Jesus was a Galilean Jew who, like the Baptist, made a stand against the greed and corruption of the priesthood.

I just read the gospels.

 

[moorea944]

Hello moorea944,
Please show your source for those claims.
The way that I read the gospels,
Jesus was a Galilean Jew who, like the Baptist, made a stand against the greed and corruption of the priesthood.

I just read the gospels.

Yes, I totally agree with that...

 

[Soapy]

I asked you a question, an easy one. 'What did Jesus and his disciples do in Jerusalem and the Temple on the first day there, that last week when he was crucified?'


Wrong.
Son of man refers to the individual who said that, rather like a person referring to themselves today as 'Yours truly'.
Son of God refers to any Jew of that time. They were all sons of their God.


Now where did you get that from? Chapter/verse?


You make stuff up, Soapy........ Jesus never did say the words 'Sons of your Father' anywhere in any of the gospels.
But if you can quote chapter and verse......... but you cannot.

Now......... what did Jesus and his do on the first day that they were in Jerusalem, that last week. ??

You are amazing… You don’t even know where pertinent scripture verses are in the Bible … and you are debating points written in the Bible?

So, you can’t answer my questions but you expect me to answer your… I knew you were fake!

In any case, the first Holy Week that year Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey to great ceremony from the Jews who wrongly thought of him as a conquering king! That their Military Messiah had come at last….

How did I do?

So, now, if I ask you. Question, will you answer me with a credible response?

 

[oldbadger]

You are amazing… You don’t even know where pertinent scripture verses are in the Bible … and you are debating points written in the Bible?

So, you can’t answer my questions but you expect me to answer your… I knew you were fake!

Soapy.... why not just quote exactly what Jesus is reported to have said. You are telling about what Jesus said when the words are not there. That's making stuff up.

In any case, the first Holy Week that year Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey to great ceremony from the Jews who wrongly thought of him as a conquering king! That their Military Messiah had come at last….

How did I do?

Soapy, If you actually took notice of what the gospels say then you could have answered my simple question. The reason why I asked that question is because I did not think that you had ever taken the time to read what is actually there.

I asked you what did Jesus and his do in Jerusalem and Temple on the first day of that last week. Unlike you I can prove that all they did was (in our language today) .....went sightseeing. You can laugh, but I can show exactly where that is written. That's the difference between you and me.,.. I know the exact story.

So, now, if I ask you. Question, will you answer me with a credible response?

I can only tell you about what is in the gospels, not made up stuff.

 

[rational experiences]

Was science made up by human men?

Yes.

Did science exist?

No.

Natural life did with everyone equal and all forms present.

Lying began with the human scientist so the bible would detail contradictions. In the life of equal humans.

If a human said God is love and then God destroys you the contradiction is God was never love.

The answer.

As God terms in human life was all about the theory of stone to have it converted. As science wanted gods powers in spirit form. The gases.

Humans teach God never hurt me.
Humans teach God hurt me.

The contradiction your human science brother caused your life harm as he changed God.

What being taught means.

 

[Soapy]

I asked you a question, an easy one. 'What did Jesus and his disciples do in Jerusalem and the Temple on the first day there, that last week when he was crucified?'


Wrong.
Son of man refers to the individual who said that, rather like a person referring to themselves today as 'Yours truly'.
Son of God refers to any Jew of that time. They were all sons of their God.


Now where did you get that from? Chapter/verse?


You make stuff up, Soapy........ Jesus never did say the words 'Sons of your Father' anywhere in any of the gospels.
But if you can quote chapter and verse......... but you cannot.

Now......... what did Jesus and his do on the first day that they were in Jerusalem, that last week. ??

You are amazing… You don’t even know where pertinent scripture verses are in the Bible … and you are debating points written in the Bible?

Soapy.... why not just quote exactly what Jesus is reported to have said. You are telling about what Jesus said when the words are not there. That's making stuff up.


Soapy, If you actually took notice of what the gospels say then you could have answered my simple question. The reason why I asked that question is because I did not think that you had ever taken the time to read what is actually there.

I asked you what did Jesus and his do in Jerusalem and Temple on the first day of that last week. Unlike you I can prove that all they did was (in our language today) .....went sightseeing. You can laugh, but I can show exactly where that is written. That's the difference between you and me.,.. I know the exact story.


I can only tell you about what is in the gospels, not made up stuff.

This is a rubbish discussion. You don’t know anything about scriptures. You aren’t even discussing scriptures. What are you doing here?

 

[oldbadger]

You are amazing… You don’t even know where pertinent scripture verses are in the Bible … and you are debating points written in the Bible?

I think I have shown beyond reasonable doubt that you have never bothered to really study the gospels, but you fill pages with your waffle, Soapy.

What did Jesus and his disciples do on the first day of that last week? In today's vernacular they all went sightseeing! A more valuable piece of information for the true student of the gospels than you could imagine, Soapy.

Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

1st day? Sightseeing! Literally.
I suggest you take more interest in the gospels, maybe?

 

[Soapy]

I think I have shown beyond reasonable doubt that you have never bothered to really study the gospels, but you fill pages with your waffle, Soapy.

What did Jesus and his disciples do on the first day of that last week? In today's vernacular they all went sightseeing! A more valuable piece of information for the true student of the gospels than you could imagine, Soapy.

Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

1st day? Sightseeing! Literally.
I suggest you take more interest in the gospels, maybe?

Like I said, you know nothing about Scriptures and are a waste of effort!

 

[oldbadger]

Like I said, you know nothing about Scriptures and are a waste of effort!

Just read about what they really did.
It's all there.
You don't have to make stuff up.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled I am a little confused about your post, because in the past you seemed to have posts conflicting with this.

I have said there is no Trinity. The Messiah was both the Father and the Son. The Father was the eternal Spirit and was dwelling in the Son (the fleshly body). But it is not two distinct persons. Is that what you are agreeing to here?

I believe I have been consistent.

I believe persons depends on the definition. God is one person by the definition of having personality. That is true for all three members of the Trinity. The church defines person as meaning a member of the Trinity.