-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can you literally believe...
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
What lies are you referring to, to the lies that the Universe is composed of matter? Okay, so I'll take you as something composed of gases. Im my case, I'll remain matter as part of the Universe. Am I now out of your way?
GodsVoice
Active Member
You have no knowledge to understand who I AM. It took many years for the servant typing this post to understand who I AM. Now that I know the body typing this post is Me, I will never have to believe anything again. I will simply know where everything came from. That's how much "faith" it takes to understand who you are in Me. It's not just a matter of belief in written words. It's a matter of experiencing the evolution from the visible world that appears to be real to understanding where it all came from. Now that I know it all came from previous thoughts that were used to create a computer generated simulation program, I can understand how it could make the illusions of men building simulation programs from their thoughts and speak coded language into voice recognition software that the computer processors can understand to build a visual world to explore.
GodsVoice
Active Member
Hi Folks...
Godsvoice;Its no use quoting the bible to me - havent you seen my posts..??... That book is irrelevant to my Father - only pertinant to the trickster Angel that deceives us AS god but is NOT ACTUALLY god at all
You should know who I AM, then. There are many who pretend to be Me but all I have to do is ask them some simple questions like "What is the Beast and why was it necessary during this temporary generation?" If you know the answer to this question, then you should know who I AM and My voice and how I was created.
GodsVoice
Active Member
How can you be in my way if you're Me?
PeteC-UK
Active Member
Hi Folks...
Voice; yes I DO know you -you are yet another of that gods agents - here to deceive us into thinking you are supreme - but look - I have been surrounded by your kin all my life and am wise to the deceptinos - you are not of MY Father and have no clue as to that turth - not of the one CHRIST alone spoke of - despite what you say, your words reveal your truth - as my mate said - by their fruit you shall know them
Voice; yes I DO know you -you are yet another of that gods agents - here to deceive us into thinking you are supreme - but look - I have been surrounded by your kin all my life and am wise to the deceptinos - you are not of MY Father and have no clue as to that turth - not of the one CHRIST alone spoke of - despite what you say, your words reveal your truth - as my mate said - by their fruit you shall know them
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
If I have a knife and stab someone, did I kill someone or did the knife?
In my experience on religious forums, around this time of the year, gods and messiahs come out of the woodwork. Just wait a few months and the spawning season will be over.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
Not it doesn't. The word for "field" means a small area of cultivated ground.
Why do you call an explanation an excuse? Look the up in a goo dicdtonary and you will see that are very different/
Maye you needs some serous study with prayer and an open mind.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You need to bone up on Mormonism if you think this is what Mormons believe.
Altfish
Veteran Member
But a field also means a place where you play cricket or football.
Whatever you say, it is open to be interpreted differently.
I see you ignored my question and just addressed my use of the word 'excuse'. I used the word excuse because you explained nothing.
I will again ask the question to give you another chance to answer.
Were animals created before or after Adam?
I can assure you my mind is fully open and awaiting evidence.
How is prayer going to help; it has been proven to be a total waste of time in blind experiments.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
You're right, except that they were not capable of pushing out the Romans. Those other things did happen.
The Day of Pentecost, the Jewish feast celebrated 50 days after Passover, was also 50 days following Christ’s resurrection. There were crowds of people in Jerusalem from all over the known world to celebrate the Day of Pentecost. There is no way to determine how many of them already knew about Christ and the resurrection, but evidently very many did. As a result of just preaching in the streets, the apostles baptized 3,000 converts before the day was over. People were lined up and waiting, and that was only on the first day of the Church.
You're wrong. Jews knew the Messianic prophesies in the Septuagint and saw them fulfilled in Jesus. They began converting to Christianity right away, and the Church expanded very quickly. They continued to convert in such great numbers that the hard-core anti Christian Jews, failing to stop it through persecution, rewrote the Septuagint to obscure the Messianic prophesies.
To state that "none of that happened, nobody noticed," etc. makes no sense.
The bottom-line reality, as we all know, is that In a three-year ministry Jesus changed the face of the world forever. And to paraphrase what SoldierofChrist pointed out earlier in this thread, that is because our Lord didn't just state that he is God; he proved it. The people of Jerusalem were talking about the resurrection then, and the world is still talking about it today. Christian persecution and martyrdom took place then and is still taking place today. It would be illogical to think that's all about something that never happened.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The Romans themselves would no doubt have taken a very great interest in such a person, leaving behind thorough, adequate, and undeniable proof, and in addition to Roman, we'd probably also be seeing a number of Eastern peoples recording the event and person, because no doubt news would spread far and wide and people from the corners of the "old world" would have traveled to Jerusalem to witness this man, and many, many, many of them would have wrote about it.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
All of that did happen in time, but of course it was much slower to spread than it would be today with mass media. Another thing to consider is that the great majority of people back then were illiterate, Many, many, many did communicate these things, but could only do it orally.
SoldierofChrist
Member
I have returned to give this piece of information to those who doubt that Jesus ever claimed to be God:
The New Testament is replete with direct and indirect claims of Christ's divinity. Perhaps the most famous is the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the word and the word of with God and the word was God" (John 1:1-3). Jesus is the word made flesh (John 1:14). Jesus is God.
Nevertheless, people have struggled to find places where Jesus himself claims to be divine. If you're looking for a passage in Scripture where Jesus says, "Hey, everyone, I'm God!" you're not going to find it.
Jesus does make such a claim several times, but it isn't easy for us to see today, because we are not familiar with the first-century Jewish context he draws upon, and since these claims are somewhat veiled to our eyes, people can reinterpret Jesus' words to explain away his divine self-reference. While such words can be explained away, his audience's reaction to Jesus' words isn’t so easy to dismiss.
Unless your view of the ancient world comes from Monty Python, people didn't carry stones in their pockets just itching to stone someone. The charge of blasphemy was serious, and stoning was against Roman law. Therefore, the reaction of Jesus' original hearers provides a solid indicator as to whether he claimed to be divine.
The high priest's response
One example that I take up in my book Hostile Witnesses: How the Historic Enemies of the Church Prove Christianityconcerns the reaction of the Jewish high priest to Jesus' response during his trial before the Sanhedrin. The text reads:
The high priest rose before the assembly and questioned Jesus, saying, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But he [Jesus] was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”'Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die (Mark 14:60-64; see also Matthew 26:61-66).
At first glance, it appears that the high priest is overreacting. Where did Jesus blaspheme? Some suggest that Jesus claimed the divine name for himself when he replied "I am" (see Exodus 3:14). Saying the divine name aloud in the first century would have been a serious offense, but we know this is not the case from the parallel passage in Matthew, where "I am" is given as "you have said so" (Matt. 26:64).
Another possibility is that Jesus' affirmation to being the Messiah was itself blasphemous. This option is even less likely, since most Jews believed that the Messiah would be a mere mortal. Claiming to be the Messiah, therefore, would not constitute a claim to be God.
Recalling Daniel
Why then did the high priest tear his robes in horror at Jesus' words? Clearly, Jesus claimed something about himself that those present thought warranted immediate execution. But what? The answer may be found in Jesus' use of the seventh chapter in the book of Daniel where the prophet receives a night vision and recalls:
As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened (Daniel 7:9-10).
Note that more than one throne was set up. One was for the "ancient of days," namely, God, to sit upon, but what about the other? Keep this in mind as we continue with verse 13:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).
In this passage, "one like a son of man" comes "with the clouds of heaven" and presents himself before God (the Ancient of Days) and receives universal and everlasting dominion over the whole Earth.
Who sits on the other throne?
These two passages together cause a certain amount of exegetical tension. If God is one, why set up more than one throne? Who sits on the other throne? Indeed, how can any creature be worthy to be enthroned next to God?
Babylonian Talmud illustrates this tension by recording a dispute between two rabbis who lived in the first decades of the second century:
"One verse of Scripture states, 'His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9), but elsewhere it is written, 'Till thrones were places, and one that was ancient of days did sit' (Dan. 7:9)! . . . “One is for him, the other for David,” the words of R. Aqiba. Said to him R. Yosé the Galilean, “Aqiba, how long are you going to treat in a profane way the Presence of God? “Rather, one is for bestowing judgment, the other for bestowing righteousness” (Hagigah 2:1a-e).
Rabbi Aqiba understood this passage to refer to two thrones: one throne for God and the other for the Messiah, the son of David. Notice Rabbi Yose the Galilean's response to Aqiba's interpretation "How long are you going to treat in a profane way the Presence of God?" However great the Messiah would be, according to Rabbi Yose's perspective, being seated on a throne would be a profanation of the Divine Presence. Instead, he suggested, the two thrones should be understood as symbols for God's judgment and the bestowing of righteousness.
Later in the passage, Aqiba eventually adopts this view. Others proposed that one throne was for God to be seated and the other was his footstool (Isaiah 66:1). In any case, the two thrones were for God alone. Another individual, even the Messiah, could not take the other throne without detracting from the glory of the one true God, since to be enthroned was to possess the authority to exercise dominion. It's interesting that later rabbis did interpret Daniel 7 to be messianic, but they omit any mention of the thrones.
Jesus as "the son of man"
The prophet Daniel never tells us who sits on the other throne, but he does tells us that the "one like the son of man" presents himself before God (the Ancient of Days) and he receives an everlasting and universal dominion. Does this mean that the "son of man" is seated on the other throne? Daniel doesn't say, but Jesus' reply to the high priest does affirm this question: "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
The "son of man" does sit on the throne at the right hand of the Power (God) and comes with the clouds of heaven—and Jesus is that Son of Man who receives universal and everlasting dominion! No wonder the high priest tore his robes in horror. Jesus made himself equal to God.
To us who may not be familiar with the prophecies of Daniel, Jesus' words seems to pertain only to his Second Coming without any reference to his divinity. The high priest's reaction forces us to look deeper into the passage to find some warrant for his actions. In this case, the high priest is a hostile witness to the proper meaning of this passage.
The New Testament is replete with direct and indirect claims of Christ's divinity. Perhaps the most famous is the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the word and the word of with God and the word was God" (John 1:1-3). Jesus is the word made flesh (John 1:14). Jesus is God.
Nevertheless, people have struggled to find places where Jesus himself claims to be divine. If you're looking for a passage in Scripture where Jesus says, "Hey, everyone, I'm God!" you're not going to find it.
Jesus does make such a claim several times, but it isn't easy for us to see today, because we are not familiar with the first-century Jewish context he draws upon, and since these claims are somewhat veiled to our eyes, people can reinterpret Jesus' words to explain away his divine self-reference. While such words can be explained away, his audience's reaction to Jesus' words isn’t so easy to dismiss.
Unless your view of the ancient world comes from Monty Python, people didn't carry stones in their pockets just itching to stone someone. The charge of blasphemy was serious, and stoning was against Roman law. Therefore, the reaction of Jesus' original hearers provides a solid indicator as to whether he claimed to be divine.
The high priest's response
One example that I take up in my book Hostile Witnesses: How the Historic Enemies of the Church Prove Christianityconcerns the reaction of the Jewish high priest to Jesus' response during his trial before the Sanhedrin. The text reads:
The high priest rose before the assembly and questioned Jesus, saying, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But he [Jesus] was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”'Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die (Mark 14:60-64; see also Matthew 26:61-66).
At first glance, it appears that the high priest is overreacting. Where did Jesus blaspheme? Some suggest that Jesus claimed the divine name for himself when he replied "I am" (see Exodus 3:14). Saying the divine name aloud in the first century would have been a serious offense, but we know this is not the case from the parallel passage in Matthew, where "I am" is given as "you have said so" (Matt. 26:64).
Another possibility is that Jesus' affirmation to being the Messiah was itself blasphemous. This option is even less likely, since most Jews believed that the Messiah would be a mere mortal. Claiming to be the Messiah, therefore, would not constitute a claim to be God.
Recalling Daniel
Why then did the high priest tear his robes in horror at Jesus' words? Clearly, Jesus claimed something about himself that those present thought warranted immediate execution. But what? The answer may be found in Jesus' use of the seventh chapter in the book of Daniel where the prophet receives a night vision and recalls:
As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened (Daniel 7:9-10).
Note that more than one throne was set up. One was for the "ancient of days," namely, God, to sit upon, but what about the other? Keep this in mind as we continue with verse 13:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).
In this passage, "one like a son of man" comes "with the clouds of heaven" and presents himself before God (the Ancient of Days) and receives universal and everlasting dominion over the whole Earth.
Who sits on the other throne?
These two passages together cause a certain amount of exegetical tension. If God is one, why set up more than one throne? Who sits on the other throne? Indeed, how can any creature be worthy to be enthroned next to God?
Babylonian Talmud illustrates this tension by recording a dispute between two rabbis who lived in the first decades of the second century:
"One verse of Scripture states, 'His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9), but elsewhere it is written, 'Till thrones were places, and one that was ancient of days did sit' (Dan. 7:9)! . . . “One is for him, the other for David,” the words of R. Aqiba. Said to him R. Yosé the Galilean, “Aqiba, how long are you going to treat in a profane way the Presence of God? “Rather, one is for bestowing judgment, the other for bestowing righteousness” (Hagigah 2:1a-e).
Rabbi Aqiba understood this passage to refer to two thrones: one throne for God and the other for the Messiah, the son of David. Notice Rabbi Yose the Galilean's response to Aqiba's interpretation "How long are you going to treat in a profane way the Presence of God?" However great the Messiah would be, according to Rabbi Yose's perspective, being seated on a throne would be a profanation of the Divine Presence. Instead, he suggested, the two thrones should be understood as symbols for God's judgment and the bestowing of righteousness.
Later in the passage, Aqiba eventually adopts this view. Others proposed that one throne was for God to be seated and the other was his footstool (Isaiah 66:1). In any case, the two thrones were for God alone. Another individual, even the Messiah, could not take the other throne without detracting from the glory of the one true God, since to be enthroned was to possess the authority to exercise dominion. It's interesting that later rabbis did interpret Daniel 7 to be messianic, but they omit any mention of the thrones.
Jesus as "the son of man"
The prophet Daniel never tells us who sits on the other throne, but he does tells us that the "one like the son of man" presents himself before God (the Ancient of Days) and he receives an everlasting and universal dominion. Does this mean that the "son of man" is seated on the other throne? Daniel doesn't say, but Jesus' reply to the high priest does affirm this question: "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
The "son of man" does sit on the throne at the right hand of the Power (God) and comes with the clouds of heaven—and Jesus is that Son of Man who receives universal and everlasting dominion! No wonder the high priest tore his robes in horror. Jesus made himself equal to God.
To us who may not be familiar with the prophecies of Daniel, Jesus' words seems to pertain only to his Second Coming without any reference to his divinity. The high priest's reaction forces us to look deeper into the passage to find some warrant for his actions. In this case, the high priest is a hostile witness to the proper meaning of this passage.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
But don't forget these:
John 8:58 - Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. (As in Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.)
John 10:30 - I and the Father are one.
John 14:9 - He that seeth me seeth the Father also.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
If I have a knife and stab someone, did I kill someone or did the knife?
In my experience on religious forums, around this time of the year, gods and messiahs come out of the woodwork. Just wait a few months and the spawning season will be over.
You killed someone, not the knife which was only the means you used to do the killing. But I don't see any analogy with the issue of the Primal Cause having caused the Universe to exist. Care to point it out to me?
Regarding gods and messiahs which you attribute to woodwork, I can see the Christian preconceived notion as a result of your experience on religious forums. The Messiah cannot be an individual; the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies." are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23.
SoldierofChrist
Member
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
double posted
Last edited:
PeteC-UK
Active Member
Hi Folks...
Soliderof Christ;
Hmm - YES WE WILL - but perhaps not in the bible - but for sure in the ORIGINAL gospels He makes it VERY clear indeed
First, we need to see the ORIGINAL gospel of John - to get a good idea just exactly what this legitimate spirit is all about - there is a long LONG detailed description given - and it starts thus :
There is a lot LOT more after that - you will NEVER see the bible describe my Father so - they just do not understand it - METAPHYSICAL TRUTH behind ALL Creation - but already we see from this original testimony given by Christ directly - Our Father is the very essence of Creation itself - literally the very SOURCE of everything...He says here is is a spirit - a PURE LIGHT that is invisible to the mortal awareness..Look Folks - He says clearly - Our Father is far FAR more than any notion of "god" you will ever hold..lol....NOT the Hebrew god at all - BEYOND that one they call god as my Father is the direct CAUSE of that one they call god
Next lets go see Judas for some clarity :
Again Our Father is described as this great invisible spirit...And look -NOT THE HRBREW GOD - look - this here is SECRET, NEW - NEVER ENCOUNTERED - not even BY that god above - this spirit HERE -Our Father -HAS NO NAME !! it is NOT the one they call YHVH - Christ just said so VERY CL:EARLY didnt He..??..
But the important bit here - again - the LIGHT - this DIVINE LIGHT - is my Fathers first Self representation....It is how my Father recognises and comprehends its own Self..All of Creation is formed from this Divine Light - from this ENERGETIC SOURCE.....It - the MIND - IS THE LIGHT !! Lets go see Thomas for some more clarity :
Again the Divine Light - it came into Being ALL BY ITSELF - established itself and appeared as "images".. Again we see clearly the Divine MIND that is causing all this IS this LIGHT - there is NO SEPERATION - none at all - the Light is the Divine minds first Self aware respresentation - one and the same entity...It is the ABSOLUTE CAUSE OF EVERYTHING -SOURCE of literally EVERYTHING..... Now - lets go see Christ fully admit and fully claim this Divine status for Himself....Also from Thomas :
And so we see - there is no doubt or questioning even needed - He just told us directly that Our Father first realises itself as this energetics Source - this Divine Light - and He just said this Light is the source of everything, established its own Self and called forth all creation...And now He just told us directly that HE the Christ IS THAT LIGHT - the full embodiment of it in a human form... The Father IS the Light that forms Creation -and Christ says that Light is HIM - HIS MIND !!
There is no seperation - Christ describes Himself as a part of a TRINITY of Divine Mind that exist in a purely none material abstract realm...I and the Father ARE ONE He said -and this is LITERAL - HIS mind is a part of the TRINITY of Divine mind that CAUSE ALL ELSE TO EXIST !!! LITERALLY Folks - He IS the "Word made flesh" - as always for those with ears to hear
Soliderof Christ;
Hmm - YES WE WILL - but perhaps not in the bible - but for sure in the ORIGINAL gospels He makes it VERY clear indeed
First, we need to see the ORIGINAL gospel of John - to get a good idea just exactly what this legitimate spirit is all about - there is a long LONG detailed description given - and it starts thus :
There is a lot LOT more after that - you will NEVER see the bible describe my Father so - they just do not understand it - METAPHYSICAL TRUTH behind ALL Creation - but already we see from this original testimony given by Christ directly - Our Father is the very essence of Creation itself - literally the very SOURCE of everything...He says here is is a spirit - a PURE LIGHT that is invisible to the mortal awareness..Look Folks - He says clearly - Our Father is far FAR more than any notion of "god" you will ever hold..lol....NOT the Hebrew god at all - BEYOND that one they call god as my Father is the direct CAUSE of that one they call god
Next lets go see Judas for some clarity :
Again Our Father is described as this great invisible spirit...And look -NOT THE HRBREW GOD - look - this here is SECRET, NEW - NEVER ENCOUNTERED - not even BY that god above - this spirit HERE -Our Father -HAS NO NAME !! it is NOT the one they call YHVH - Christ just said so VERY CL:EARLY didnt He..??..
But the important bit here - again - the LIGHT - this DIVINE LIGHT - is my Fathers first Self representation....It is how my Father recognises and comprehends its own Self..All of Creation is formed from this Divine Light - from this ENERGETIC SOURCE.....It - the MIND - IS THE LIGHT !! Lets go see Thomas for some more clarity :
Again the Divine Light - it came into Being ALL BY ITSELF - established itself and appeared as "images".. Again we see clearly the Divine MIND that is causing all this IS this LIGHT - there is NO SEPERATION - none at all - the Light is the Divine minds first Self aware respresentation - one and the same entity...It is the ABSOLUTE CAUSE OF EVERYTHING -SOURCE of literally EVERYTHING..... Now - lets go see Christ fully admit and fully claim this Divine status for Himself....Also from Thomas :
And so we see - there is no doubt or questioning even needed - He just told us directly that Our Father first realises itself as this energetics Source - this Divine Light - and He just said this Light is the source of everything, established its own Self and called forth all creation...And now He just told us directly that HE the Christ IS THAT LIGHT - the full embodiment of it in a human form... The Father IS the Light that forms Creation -and Christ says that Light is HIM - HIS MIND !!
There is no seperation - Christ describes Himself as a part of a TRINITY of Divine Mind that exist in a purely none material abstract realm...I and the Father ARE ONE He said -and this is LITERAL - HIS mind is a part of the TRINITY of Divine mind that CAUSE ALL ELSE TO EXIST !!! LITERALLY Folks - He IS the "Word made flesh" - as always for those with ears to hear
Last edited:
Not in Hebrews. Definitions are not open to interpretation.
Before
There is no evidence of spiritual truth that you will accept. Unless you are converted, you CAN'T understand spiritual truth. What I believe is foolishness to you(I Cor 2:14),
Prayer to prove prayer is utterly useless. Non-Christians do not know how to pray properly.