Jesus is God?

[icebuddy]

Jesus eating something also showed he was there in bodily form.

I agree 100% that Jesus was in his Body after resurrection.

How could Jesus rise with a flesh and bone body when 1st Cor 15v50 is clear that flesh and blood can Not inherit the kingdom of God?

Read your own question again. Flesh and Bone (without Blood) is very different from Flesh and Blood. Jesus spilled his blood for our sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Clearly Jesus stood before the disiples in a Flesh and bone body without blood, for he had shed his blood for our sins. Something animals where only pointing to

Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

So, Jesus's blood is gone after he raised his body from the dead with the Father. (Blood Shed for our sins = Gone) Not sure wether blood symbolizes sin or its a requirement from God to be shed at death, but Flesh and blood symbolizes sin and coruption as the passage explains. Jesus and his flesh and bone body are not nor do they symbolize corruption and they are pure and good. We also know Jesus ascended into heaven with this body as well.

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Jesus was originally from the spirit realm before God sent Jesus to earth to be born as a perfect sinless human. Jesus returned to the spirit realm when God resurrected him.

I dont disagree with you here, only i believe he returned in his body. Where do you think his body is anyways?

URMVP2ME,
I have read the rest of your post and we disagree on a few things. But for the main part we agree that many will be ressurected into new bodies and live through the 1000 year reign with Jesus.

In Love,
Tom

 

[icebuddy]

You have resoned that the fact that Jesus shed His bllood means that He shed all of it however a shedding of blood can be a little or a lot and rarely would it be total.

The bible says Jesus spilled or shed his blood for our sins, yet you say not all of it? Thats bizzare to me.

In addition to that the resurrected body was an operational body which suggests that it worked in the same way as ours

Thats where we disagree. The disiples say that their new bodies will be like Christs new body. i believe they didnt understand his new body either. Yet you claim its simalar, and I disagree...

1Cr 15:48 Every human being has an earthly body just like Adam's, but our heavenly bodies will be just like Christ's.

None of the descriptions of him describe Him as pale as though He had no blood.

You are assuming blood is needed in the new body. For all I know its holy water or spirit juice. However, I would think blood is the last thing in Jesus's body. He himself says it was Flesh and bone

Luk 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

I also believe they still had holes in his body

Jhn 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
Jhn 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

Even if you think these are healed scars, what amazes me is that one is willing to believe in miricles like resurrection but then say Jesus must of had blood afterwards in order to surrive. I just dont get the logic of believing in miricles yet putting human limitations upon them...

This is based on the null hypothesis ie that Jesus didn't mention His blood. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Jesus says he spilled his blood for us, i think he finished it completly. To say he didnt spill all of his blood is absurd to me not vise versa.

He didn't mention that He had eyes either but one can infer that He is seeing His disciples and the null hypothesis appears pretty silly as a result. He didn't mention that He had a mouth but He ate fish and bread by the shores of Galilee.

But he did say he spilled his blood for us, meaning it left him. The whole bible is filled with passages saying the Blood of Christ was shed for us. Not some paper cut that bled a little, his blood meaning all of it. If you look back at the Old testament all the blood is poored out for the offering of sin, not some, but all. Jesus is the Lamb of God and Im sure God followed his own rules, dont you?

In love,
tom

 

[icebuddy]

Jesus is the direct creation of God, in this case he is not a God.

Thats private interpitation. Never does the bible say Jesus was created or a creature created. In fact if you read John 1:3 it clearly states he was not created.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

After reading John 1:3 was Jesus made or created? This is the clearest scripture i have ever seen concerning the origins of Jesus.

The holy spirit is not God, this is God's active force, a very powerful one that He uses in all of his creations.

You need to be carefull how you blurt out things

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

the Holy Spirit is much more than a power. One cannot Blasphemy a power or force, therefore the Holy Spirit is Alive and has emotions.

in Love,
Tom

 

[smokydot]

I know that there are a good many christians out their who believe that those who follow the jewish religion need to be saved because they do not worship Jesus. So, quick question:

Jesus is God(YHWH). It seems to me that we are worshipping the same deity. Am I correct? Why or why not?

The issue is not worship, the issue is a holy God not accepting the worship of those who sin against him.
Worship is not acceptable to a holy God unless the sin of the worshipper has been dealt with.
In the Old Testament, the remedy for their sin was the sacrifices, which covered the sin of those who trusted the sacrifices, thereby making their worship acceptable to a holy God.
In the New Testament, the perfect sacrifice has been offered once for all, which does not just cover sin, but remits (removes) sin.
Therefore, the Old Testament sacrificial system has been abolished, and there is now only one perfect sacrifice which remits the sin of those who trust that sacrifice to make their worship acceptable to a holy God.

There is now only one sacrifice which deals with sin and makes, for those who trust it, their worship acceptable to a holy God.
Apart from trusting that sacrifice, there is no worship acceptable to a holy God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The issue is not worship, the issue is a holy God not accepting the worship of those who sin against him.
Worship is not acceptable to a holy God unless the sin of the worshipper has been dealt with.
In the Old Testament, the remedy for their sin was the sacrifices, which covered the sin of those who trusted the sacrifices, thereby making their worship acceptable to a holy God.
In the New Testament, the perfect sacrifice has been offered once for all, which does not just cover sin, but remits (removes) sin.
Therefore, the Old Testament sacrificial system has been abolished, and there is now only one perfect sacrifice which remits the sin of those who trust that sacrifice to make their worship acceptable to a holy God.

There is now only one sacrifice which deals with sin and makes, for those who trust it, their worship acceptable to a holy God.
Apart from trusting that sacrifice, there is no worship acceptable to a holy God.

Your very own Bible by the words of your biblical Yeshua says otherwise.

Matthew 5-17-19

17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[icebuddy]

What's more likely, an all powerful, mysterious god created the universe and decided not to give any proof of his existence or he simply doesn't exist at all and we created him so we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone? - Jodi Foster (Contact 1997)

A Science teacher wants to take his class on a field trip to do a Geological study on rock formations and how they are formed. The Science teacher has one rule that they must all follow.

Rule 1 - They can only use natural processes and cannot use an intelligent designer theory.

Just as they arrive to their rock formation site of Black Hills, South Dakota, they all get off the bus and to their amazement stand before Mount Rushmore. How would you explain Mount Rushmore if you could only use natural processes and not provoke intelligent design? (This is exactly how science views Gods creation)

Isn’t it amazing what one must believe to become an unbeliever? And Mt Rushmore is only a Monument of 4 men made out of rock. What about the men themselves?

Proof of Gods existance is all around us, you only view it from your own bias that he doesnt exist.

Rom 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

In Love,
Tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A Science teacher wants to take his class on a field trip to do a Geological study on rock formations and how they are formed. The Science teacher has one rule that they must all follow.

Rule 1 - They can only use natural processes and cannot use an intelligent designer theory.

Just as they arrive to their rock formation site of Black Hills, South Dakota, they all get off the bus and to their amazement stand before Mount Rushmore. How would you explain Mount Rushmore if you could only use natural processes and not provoke intelligent design? (This is exactly how science views Gods creation)

Isn’t it amazing what one must believe to become an unbeliever? And Mt Rushmore is only a Monument of 4 men made out of rock. What about the men themselves?

Proof of Gods existance is all around us, you only view it from your own bias that he doesnt exist.

Rom 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.






In Love,
Tom

And your point?

First off....I simply like the quote and to a degree it is irrelevant to this thread but since you opened the door I'll address your opinion.

Using Mt. Rushmore is a poor example because we actually have evidence of who carved the faces in the mountain. In fact, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that the faces did not occur naturally.

We simply have no evidence for "God".....All that exist is belief, opinion and speculation of said "God". There is just as much "evidence" for your god as there is for any other gods.

 

[smokydot]

Your very own Bible by the words of your biblical Yeshua says otherwise.

Matthew 5-17-19

17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

The new order does not replace the old, it completes it.
It is the same order, in its completion.
Like the flower is the same order of the seed, in its completion.

[18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

It's purpose is achieved in Jesus of Nazareth.
The new order of faith in Jesus of Nazareth, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the remission of sin of those who trust him to make them acceptable to a holy God,
does not nullify the Law, it upholds it (Rom 3:31) by completing it.
See Romans chps 6-7, 13:8-10.

19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The new order does not nullify the Decalogue,
but it does fullfil the Levitical laws in Jesus of Nazareth, thereby abolishing them (Eph 2:15, Heb 9:10).
The old covenant mediated by Moses has been made obsolete (Heb 8:6-10,13, 9:15, 10:9) by the new covenant mediated by Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 22:20).

 

[icebuddy]

And your point?

its a good story to get people thinking.

Using Mt. Rushmore is a poor example because we actually have evidence of who carved the faces in the mountain. In fact, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that the faces did not occur naturally.

Thats the whole point. The point is that how would one explain Mt Rushmore if you where to follow one rule, that rule being you must explain it naturaly. The point being you cannot provoke inteligent design. Just as Evolution explains things naturaly. The irony of this story is Evolution might be explaining away Gods creation in a natural fassion just as students are forced to explain MT Rushmore naturaly. For the same rule applys to all Evolutionist, one rule.

Rule 1 - They can only use natural processes and cannot use an intelligent designer theory.

We simply have no evidence for "God".....All that exist is belief, opinion and speculation of said "God". There is just as much "evidence" for your god as there is for any other gods

Think of it this way. Lets say 1000 years from now we land on a planet and find a rock formation similar to "MT Rushmore". Would we believe it was Naturaly formed or created by inteligent aliens? My point being Mt Rushmore is rock symbolizing mans face. How much more complex is man himself to say "We simply have no evidence for God"? Your evidence is you and me and everything around us. Just as mt Rushmore is evidence of having a creator.

There is just as much "evidence" for your god as there is for any other gods

Then why are you on this page(Jesus is God) posting pasages out of the New Testament? What is your purpose?

In Love,
Tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

its a good story to get people thinking.



Thats the whole point. The point is that how would one explain Mt Rushmore if you where to follow one rule, that rule being you must explain it naturaly. The point being you cannot provoke inteligent design. Just as Evolution explains things naturaly. The irony of this story is Evolution might be explaining away Gods creation in a natural fassion just as students are forced to explain MT Rushmore naturaly. For the same rule applys to all Evolutionist, one rule.

Rule 1 - They can only use natural processes and cannot use an intelligent designer theory.

Again, your reasoning here is flawed. I could approach Mt. Rushmore using natural methods but if I tried to decipher the faces coming into being by a natural process I would not be able to do it. It doesn't mean an unseen unknown created it. I could speculate that being the case but the lack of evidence does not suggest a creator. It just means it's an unknown at this point.

As far as evolution is concerned please know that it in itself doe not rule in favor for or against "God" or gods. Evolution is about change over time and there is an abundant amount of evidence to support it.

"We simply have no evidence for God"? Your evidence is you and me and everything around us. Just as mt Rushmore is evidence of having a creator.

Again, this is flawed reasoning. The Mt. Rushmore sculpture is evidence of a creator because we have evidence of a creator of that sculpted work. Because we exist does not mean we have a creator...All it means is we exist. Our existence has been explained.

Then why are you on this page(Jesus is God) posting pasages out of the New Testament? What is your purpose?

In Love,
Tom

I simply like debate. Maybe I can learn and maybe I can teach. I mean.....it is a debate forum and not one setup for proselytization.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
the Holy Spirit is much more than a power. One cannot Blasphemy a power or force, therefore the Holy Spirit is Alive and has emotions.
in Love,
Tom

Matt 12v28 says by the spirit 'of' God. Wouldn't 'of' show something that God possess or owns?

Is God giving a person to all that ask at Luke 11v13 B?_______
Please notice Luke 11v20 because Luke equates God's spirit as the 'finger' of God.
Exodus 31v18 says regarding God's spirit as written by the 'finger' of God.
Aren't finger and spirit used interchangeably?

Genesis 1v2 also shows God used his spirit or spirit of God in creation.
Psalm 104v30 mentions God sending forth his spirit in creating.

Psalm 143v10 says God's spirit is good,
and as the Psalmist at 51v11 asks
to take not God's holy spirit from the psalmist.

So just as the people of Acts 2v4 were filled with holy spirit were not filled with a person but God's power to help accomplish his will.

 

[Muffled]

Matt 12v28 says by the spirit 'of' God. Wouldn't 'of' show something that God possess or owns?

Is God giving a person to all that ask at Luke 11v13 B?_______
Please notice Luke 11v20 because Luke equates God's spirit as the 'finger' of God.
Exodus 31v18 says regarding God's spirit as written by the 'finger' of God.
Aren't finger and spirit used interchangeably?

Genesis 1v2 also shows God used his spirit or spirit of God in creation.
Psalm 104v30 mentions God sending forth his spirit in creating.

Psalm 143v10 says God's spirit is good,
and as the Psalmist at 51v11 asks
to take not God's holy spirit from the psalmist.

So just as the people of Acts 2v4 were filled with holy spirit were not filled with a person but God's power to help accomplish his will.

God is a spirit. It is an intrinsic attribute whereas the judgement of God on Sodom is not intrinsic but temporal. The mistake many people make is personifying the attributes of God. However the qualification is needed since there are other spirits other than God so it is necessary to say which one you are talking about. There are other ways in which we encounter God: His word, His creation, His salvation.

God is a person in the sense that a spirit is a person. He has persoanl attributes. When we have the Paraclete we have God.

Obviously the anthropomorphism is used as a metaphor for the displaying of God's power. However there is no power of God without God. It is an intrinsic attribute.

You have proven nothing. When the people were filled with God, His person and power have to be there because they are attributes of God.

 

[icebuddy]

As far as evolution is concerned please know that it in itself doe not rule in favor for or against "God" or gods. Evolution is about change over time and there is an abundant amount of evidence to support it.

Thats fine, but Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity or any other religion. One must have alot of Faith in order to believe something that cannot be proven or seen.

Again, your reasoning here is flawed.

Heres my point, If we walked up to a statue of President Obama one would conclude a inteligent designer, yet walk up to Obama himself who is more complex than the statue and deny inteligent design is odd to me. The point being that science has adopted Evolution as fact trying to explain away everything with natural processes without giving God a chance. For if God does exist and did create everything, then Evolution is dead wrong because they cannot provoke the supernatural to explain things, but only the natural. Many people may think Evolutionism of mankind is proven, but it cannot be reproduce, seen, and goes against scientific laws.

The Mt. Rushmore sculpture is evidence of a creator because we have evidence of a creator of that sculpted work.

Whats the Bible? Many facts are pulled out of the bible, why not a creator?

I simply like debate. Maybe I can learn and maybe I can teach. I mean.....it is a debate forum and not one setup for proselytization.

Thats cool, I just wanted you to know what room you where in and why I poked you. Anyways, I will drop some questions to you to think about later. Im reading some books and watching some videos on creation and Evolutionism. I have been taking the last 4 years to study this between work and for sure both take faith to believe 100%.

In Love,
Tom

 

[Muffled]

The bible says Jesus spilled or shed his blood for our sins, yet you say not all of it? Thats bizzare to me.

Thats where we disagree. The disiples say that their new bodies will be like Christs new body. i believe they didnt understand his new body either. Yet you claim its simalar, and I disagree...

1Cr 15:48 Every human being has an earthly body just like Adam's, but our heavenly bodies will be just like Christ's.

You are assuming blood is needed in the new body. For all I know its holy water or spirit juice. However, I would think blood is the last thing in Jesus's body. He himself says it was Flesh and bone

Luk 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

I also believe they still had holes in his body

Jhn 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
Jhn 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

Even if you think these are healed scars, what amazes me is that one is willing to believe in miricles like resurrection but then say Jesus must of had blood afterwards in order to surrive. I just dont get the logic of believing in miricles yet putting human limitations upon them...

Jesus says he spilled his blood for us, i think he finished it completly. To say he didnt spill all of his blood is absurd to me not vise versa.

But he did say he spilled his blood for us, meaning it left him. The whole bible is filled with passages saying the Blood of Christ was shed for us. Not some paper cut that bled a little, his blood meaning all of it. If you look back at the Old testament all the blood is poored out for the offering of sin, not some, but all. Jesus is the Lamb of God and Im sure God followed his own rules, dont you?

In love,
tom

I suppose then that you have never heard of embalming which is the process of replacing a dead person's blood with embalming fluid. What is your understanding of bodily functions? Blood passes through the blood vessals by means of a pumping organism called the heart. When the pump stops the flow of blood stops. Or will you try to tell me that Jesus didn't have a human body so it wouldn't work that way?

You can disagree all that you wish but you will still have to provide evidence. You have provided evidence that the body of Jesus after resurrection is different in some way. However that does not give you liberty to speculate as to what that difference is.

It is not an assumption but an educated guess. God consistently creates human bodies that have a vascular system. He did so with Jesus and there is no reason that I can think of for Him to change His usual practice unless you are going to argue that a body with a vascular system could not last forever.

I would not argue against an alternative view if it had any validity. After all He was able to create the blue blooded aliens who have blue skin as a result. We think of ourselves as white but we appear red skinned because of the red blood that is predominant. However what I am saying is that such a change in a persons appearance (with no blood a person would not appear red but pale) would have been noted by the witnesses.

The question is not what you think but what actually happened.

I have never seen a verse that says Jesus shed all his blood.

You jest, lol. God changes things around as He wills. If we were to go by that criteria then Jesus should also have left instructions for his body to be roasted and eaten. (Thank God all we have to heat and eat is bread)

 

[icebuddy]

Is God giving a person to all that ask at Luke 11v13 B?_______

A gift - but Jesus is a gift from God. Jesus is also called a "Door", so this thinking is odd to me.

How can that which is impersonal fully reveal that which is personal, to the person?
Do you have a personal relationship with the President of the USA through the TV?
Why would he who is personal elect to use something impersonal to relate to a person?
Why would God use Jesus (a person) for 3 years and for the rest of human time use an inpersonal force?

The bible is filled with Personalities of the Holy Spirit, showing a attributes of a person.

Jhn 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Clearly the Holy Spirit isnt just a power source from God or this passage wouldnt exist. Its a Personal Relationship with Father and Son with the Holy Spirit.

Please notice Luke 11v20 because Luke equates God's spirit as the 'finger' of God.

Jesus is called the "Door" and the "Way". At least the Holy Spirit gets to be a finger. LOL (I couldnt resist) this doesnt mean the Holy Spirit is inpersonal. The Holy spirit has many upon many personal attributes, with your same thinking he would be personal and not a power source alone.

Genesis 1v2 also shows God used his spirit or spirit of God in creation.
Psalm 104v30 mentions God sending forth his spirit in creating.

in your belief you also believe Jesus was sent out like a construction worker durring creation too, right? That doesnt mean Jesus is a force, does it... We think totaly different. i just cant believe anyone reading the bible and comming up with this...

Can you Lie to a power?
Can you talk to a power?
Can a power Love, be blaspheme, have personalities, Confort someone, Encourage, Intercede, Bear witness, has a will of its own, and many more. (just what i remember)

Re-read john 16:13 and see the Holy Spirit is of its own person and one with God. Many JW will say the Trinity was added into the bible, yet what about the Holy Spirit? Please read

So just as the people of Acts 2v4 were filled with holy spirit were not filled with a person but God's power to help accomplish his will.

I have read the passages and do not see what you see or how you come to your concussions. Can I ask you a question: Who are you learning all this from, is the Holy Spirit teaching you or the WTBS? thats a valid question dont you think?

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

in Love,
Tom

 

[gerobbins]

CHRIST IS A GOD. NOT AS GREAT AS JEHOVAH (THE FATHER), BUT GOD NONETHELESS.

Is he God as in God? this is were I get confused.

 

[icebuddy]

I suppose then that you have never heard of embalming which is the process of replacing a dead person's blood with embalming fluid. What is your understanding of bodily functions? Blood passes through the blood vessals by means of a pumping organism called the heart. When the pump stops the flow of blood stops. Or will you try to tell me that Jesus didn't have a human body so it wouldn't work that way?

What I cant figure out is why one would believe in miricles of the bible, like the resurrection and then force natural fuctions to a super natural person and body?

You can disagree all that you wish but you will still have to provide evidence. You have provided evidence that the body of Jesus after resurrection is different in some way. However that does not give you liberty to speculate as to what that difference is.

What do we know? That Jesus spilled his blood for our sins. That Jesus's resurrected body had holes in it and wasnt bleeding. And that Jesus himself says he is flesh and bone and in that body asended into heaven. All of this was a Miricle, right? Then why do you try to force natural body fuctions upon Miricles? Thats whats odd to me...

It is not an assumption but an educated guess. God consistently creates human bodies that have a vascular system.

I dont think God is still creating, do you? After the 6th day he rested. i like to think Gods creation is on automactic pilot of some kind...

He did so with Jesus and there is no reason that I can think of for Him to change His usual practice unless you are going to argue that a body with a vascular system could not last forever.

This is such a bizzare topic... Why do you force natural upon the super natural? Do you believe in Miricles? Why stop now if you do? God made all the rules of nature and he controls them and they do what he wills, he does not need to follow them himself. I believ Paul had no idea what his new body would be like, but said it would be like Jesus's body. This alone means its very different.

However what I am saying is that such a change in a persons appearance (with no blood a person would not appear red but pale) would have been noted by the witnesses.

Again, you are appling natural things to a super natural person, Jesus.

1Cr 15:42 It is the same way for the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies, which die and decay, will be different when they are resurrected, for they will never die.

1Cr 15:44 They are natural human bodies now, but when they are raised, they will be spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, so also there are spiritual bodies.

1Cr 15:46 What came first was the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later.

1Cr 15:48 Every human being has an earthly body just like Adam's, but our heavenly bodies will be just like Christ's.
1Cr 15:49 Just as we are now like Adam, the man of the earth, so we will someday be like Christ, the man from heaven.

Clearly Jesus's Body was not like adams and different from what we now know.

In Love,
Tom

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Is he God as in God? this is were I get confused.

Jesus, according to Revelation 3v14 B, believed that he [Jesus] was the beginning of the creation by God.

God had no beginning -Psalm 90v2
Only God was before the beginning.
Jesus had a beginning and was not before the beginning.

Being God's 'first' [Col 1vs15,16] then Jesus was God's firstborn, so to speak, in the heavens. In other words, Jesus existed in the heavens as God's only begotten heavenly Son because all other creation [heavenly or earthly] came through Jesus.

After Jesus resurrection to heaven at Rev 2v18 Jesus still considers himself to be the Son of God. At Rev 3v12 Jesus still believes he has a God over him.

Since God is uncreated and Jesus is created then just as Scripture says God is Jesus' Father. Father means life giver. God gave life first to the heavenly Jesus that is why Jesus can be called God's Son first in heaven, then on earth, then back in heaven again.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thats fine, but Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity or any other religion. One must have alot of Faith in order to believe something that cannot be proven or seen.

Then what I would suggest is to get a better understanding as to what the TOE says. It is based on the scientific method. Everything we currently know is based on the scientific method. The Influenza Virus evolves. We know this because we can study it and have evidence of its evolutionary path. We know the same for the birds as well as man. We can trace our evolutionary path back beyond the time line given to us by YEC or OEC.

Heres my point, If we walked up to a statue of President Obama one would conclude a inteligent designer, yet walk up to Obama himself who is more complex than the statue and deny inteligent design is odd to me.

But that's you....not me. If I landed on Earth and there was absolutely nothing here but a statue of the President I could "assume" is was made but I could not say that for a "fact" seeing as though I wouldn't have any evidence to substantiate my hypothesis. This is where that "Scientific Method" comes into play in order to determine whether a thing is made or formed naturally. We can show that humans did, in fact, evolve from earlier hominids. Unfortunately this is only disputed by OEC and YEC but they've presented no credible evidence to suggest their hypothesis is to be taken seriously.

The point being that science has adopted Evolution as fact trying to explain away everything with natural processes without giving God a chance.

It does not. Just because science can show the existence or evolution of a thing does not mean it has ruled out your god or any other gods or aliens.

For if God does exist and did create everything, then Evolution is dead wrong because they cannot provoke the supernatural to explain things, but only the natural. Many people may think Evolutionism of mankind is proven, but it cannot be reproduce, seen, and goes against scientific laws.

Actually this is incorrect. Evolution is about change over time. This is why I said evolution does not rule in favor for or against gods or even aliens. Evolution can only explain the change in life as we know it on this planet. The Scientific Method in conjunction with our understanding of Evolution has lead to countless scientific breakthroughs. If it weren't for that understanding you and I would't even be having this conversation.

Whats the Bible? Many facts are pulled out of the bible, why not a creator?

The bible is a book that was composed by the hands of men. It can neither serve to prove the existence or non-existence of "God" or any other gods.... One can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. It is an exercise in futility.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A gift - but Jesus is a gift from God. Jesus is also called a "Door", so this thinking is odd to me.

Jhn 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

Jesus is called the "Door" and the "Way". At least the Holy Spirit gets to be a finger.

Re-read john 16:13 and see the Holy Spirit is of its own person and one with God.
John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
in Love,
Tom

Yes, Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a helper to teach, guide and speak.
[John 16v13; 14v16,26].
Isn't the Greek word 'he' used for helper [parakletos] in the masculine gender?
So when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used the masculine personal pronouns [John 16vs7,8] of the Greek language.
On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit [pneuma] is used the neuter pronoun 'it' is properly used.
Jesus is not an 'it'. God is not an 'it'.
At John 14v17 [it] the Greek word spirit is neuter [it], while we use personal pronouns in English, most Greek manuscripts do also use 'it' where English does not.
So when the Bible uses Greek masculine pronouns in connection with [parakletos] at John 16vs 7,8 it is using or conforming to Greek grammar rules not doctrine.
Isn't God's spirit also referred to as an 'it' at Numbers 11v17 ?
Besides the connection to God's spirit of Matt 12v28 being God's finger used of Luke 11v20? [Exodus 31v18]

So the spirit of truth is the same as God's good spirit to instruct at Neh. 9v20.
God's spirit was in God's prophets. -Neh 9v30.
One person can not be inside another, yet one person be in several other persons.

However, God's spirit of holiness [Rom 1v4] can be used as a teacher, etc. as John 14v26 says a reminder of what was taught being brought to mind.
__________________________________________________________________

Besides being called a door, Jesus was also a light [lamp] and a true vine
So Jesus likening himself to a door is in harmony that through Jesus sheep-like people [Matt 25v32] can approach God and be delivered to gain everlasting life.
John 14v6 answers why by saying that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus as the door or door way or gate way.

1st Tim 2v5 mentions Jesus as a go between or mediator for us. Usually a door separates something. So since we are separated from God by sin, then Jesus is the door that we need to enter to have approach to God in prayer. Please also note Gen 4v7. Sin lies at the door for Cain. We know sin does not literally lie at a door.

Also Psalm 9v13 B mentions death having gates in a figurative way.
Psalm 107v18 also mentions the gates of death.
Those gates of death Isaiah [38v10] called the gates of the grave.
Jesus has keys [figurative keys] to unlock gates and doors.
Rev 1v18 informs Jesus has the keys to death and the grave [haides].
In the resurrection Jesus will unlock death's door, so to speak.
Jesus unlocks the prison house door of death releasing death's captives.
That is why Rev 21vs4,5 can say even death will be no more.
-Acts 24v15.