Jesus is not God

[YoursTrue]

It's simple: you lack understanding.

Again...

"I and the Father are one.” (present tense)

"... that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (present tense)

These are not confusing statements. Their meaning is plain and obvious.

Jesus did not say he is one with the father and holy Spirit. Then when he said that all of them may be one, do you think that means his followers are God the Trinity also? Or was it a different combination? John 17:22 - have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—

 

[jimb]

Jesus did not say he is one with the father and holy Spirit. Then when he said that all of them may be one, do you think that means his followers are God the Trinity also? Or was it a different combination? John 17:22 - have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—

Yes, I believe that when a person accepts God as her/his Savior, s/he becomes one with Him (and with Jesus (the son), and with the Holy Spirit).

If I say that I have a wife and two children, and that we are all one family, yet distinct individuals, does that make it easier to understand?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I believe that when a person accepts God as her/his Savior, s/he becomes one with Him (and with Jesus (the son), and with the Holy Spirit).

If I say that I have a wife and two children, and that we are all one family, yet distinct individuals, does that make it easier to understand?

The father is still head of the wife. 1 Peter 3:1 tells wives they must be in subjection to their husbands, it is not an equal partnership with 2 other persons. Jesus spoke clearly about his love for the Father and the Father's love for him. The Father has given Jesus great authority.

 

[blü 2]

If you don't understand what the Bible says that is not my problem.

And if you wish to impose an interpretation on the bible that the text doesn't support, well, I suppose that's what freedom of religious belief is all about ─ though not on the debate boards at RF./

Your "explanation" is simply your personal opinion, so you are "the pot calling the kettle black".

So, for example, how do you account for the five different versions of Jesus in the NT, each devised by an author who never met an historical Jesus? The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish man until his baptism by JtB, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son on the model of Psalm 2:7 (affirmed at Acts 13:33). He is not descended from David and says you don't need to be. The Jesus of Matthew is born when God impregnates his mother, meaning he has God's Y-chromosome. He's said to be descended from David by a nonsensical "genealogy" that leads to Joseph, who is expressly NOT his father. The Jesus of Luke is similar, but the pretend genealogy is again for Joseph, and irreconcilable with Matthew's. The Jesus of John and the Jesus of Paul both pre-existed in heaven with God, both created the material universe (regardless of Genesis 1), and have unidentified parents who are nonetheless able to make them descendants of David. As I have twice tried to make to clear to you, these latter two have qualities found in gnosticism ─ pre-existing in heaven and creating the material universe, and also being representatives of a remote God who can only be reached via an intermediary, Jesus. Gnosticism is not mentioned in the texts. The traits of gnosticism are.

Got it?

You did make one correct statement (probably by accident): "Jesus points out the manner in which he is one with God, and says that anyone who believes in him becomes one with him, Jesus, hence through Jesus, one with God."

But of course that's only true of the gnostics, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John. The three synoptic Jesuses make no such claim.

 

[jimb]

The father is still head of the wife. 1 Peter 3:1 tells wives they must be in subjection to their husbands, it is not an equal partnership with 2 other persons. Jesus spoke clearly about his love for the Father and the Father's love for him. The Father has given Jesus great authority.

"The father is still the head of the wife"???

Since I don't live in the Mediterranean culture of 2,000 years ago I don't subscribe to its mores. I am an equaI partner with my wife in our 55-year happy marriage.

Genesis 2:23-24, "The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I suppose you think that women shouldn't teach or speak in church. How is it living under the law?

 

[jimb]

And if you wish to impose an interpretation on the bible that the text doesn't support, well, I suppose that's what freedom of religious belief is all about ─ though not on the debate boards at RF./
So, for example, how do you account for the five different versions of Jesus in the NT, each devised by an author who never met an historical Jesus? The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish man until his baptism by JtB, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son on the model of Psalm 2:7 (affirmed at Acts 13:33). He is not descended from David and says you don't need to be. The Jesus of Matthew is born when God impregnates his mother, meaning he has God's Y-chromosome. He's said to be descended from David by a nonsensical "genealogy" that leads to Joseph, who is expressly NOT his father. The Jesus of Luke is similar, but the pretend genealogy is again for Joseph, and irreconcilable with Matthew's. The Jesus of John and the Jesus of Paul both pre-existed in heaven with God, both created the material universe (regardless of Genesis 1), and have unidentified parents who are nonetheless able to make them descendants of David. As I have twice tried to make to clear to you, these latter two have qualities found in gnosticism ─ pre-existing in heaven and creating the material universe, and also being representatives of a remote God who can only be reached via an intermediary, Jesus. Gnosticism is not mentioned in the texts. The traits of gnosticism are.

Got it?

But of course that's only true of the gnostics, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John. The three synoptic Jesuses make no such claim.

If you wish to impose an interpretation on the bible that the text doesn't support, well, that's your problem.

Since you clearly lack an understanding of the gospels, the rest of your nonsensical post doesn't deserve a reply.

 

[YoursTrue]

"The father is still the head of the wife"???

Since I don't live in the Mediterranean culture of 2,000 years ago I don't subscribe to its mores. I am an equaI partner with my wife in our 55-year happy marriage.

Genesis 2:23-24, "The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I suppose you think that women shouldn't teach or speak in church. How is it living under the law?

Eve came from Adam's rib, right?

 

[jimb]

Eve came from Adam's rib, right?

a) What is your point?
b) Again, I suppose you think that women shouldn't teach or speak in church. How is it living under the law?

 

[YoursTrue]

a) What is your point?
b) Again, I suppose you think that women shouldn't teach or speak in church. How is it living under the law?

I believe what the Bible says. And it says that Jesus said the Father is greater than he is. "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) In relation to humans, we are all humans. But we don't become EQUAL to God or Jesus. The same way, husbands and wives are human. Men are usually stronger than women. The woman (Adam's wife) was created after Adam was and she was not created from the soil like Adam was. She came from his body namely his rib.

 

[YoursTrue]

"The father is still the head of the wife"???

Since I don't live in the Mediterranean culture of 2,000 years ago I don't subscribe to its mores. I am an equaI partner with my wife in our 55-year happy marriage.

Genesis 2:23-24, "The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I suppose you think that women shouldn't teach or speak in church. How is it living under the law?

Yes they became one flesh because the woman was taken from the man's body. He was made first from the soil. She was not.

 

[jimb]

I believe what the Bible says. And it says that Jesus said the Father is greater than he is. "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) In relation to humans, we are all humans. But we don't become EQUAL to God or Jesus. The same way, husbands and wives are human. Men are usually stronger than women. The woman (Adam's wife) was created after Adam was and she was not created from the soil like Adam was. She came from his body namely his rib.

How is it living under the old covenant?

It's sad that you don't comprehend what the new covenant is all about.

Here are a few facts that I believe, for you to ponder...

I have already written about Jesus being one with God. This also applies not only to the Holy Spirit, but for all those who are born again into eternal life. => We are in Christ and one with God <=

Of course Jesus, when He became a mortal man, regarded the Father as greater than He was, therefore being a model for all believers. This doesn't negate His divine status, regained once He was resurrected. And since we are in Christ, I believe that we also have divine status, i.e., our sins are forgiven and we have eternal life.

This is what I believe regarding husbands and wives... Nothing says the true condition of people who have died to themselves and have a new life in Christ better than Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I don't know why you have a problem with equality, unless you, like the ancient Jews, regard yourself as superior. You take a quote from Peter to bolster your prejudice, but that just shows that you lack understanding.

I believe what the Bible says, specifically what it means to live under the New Covenant. I believe what the Bible says regarding what it means to live and think as a Christian. I (and many others) are overjoyed to be free of the judgement of others and have found peace with God in Jesus Christ.

 

[YoursTrue]

How is it living under the old covenant?

It's sad that you don't comprehend what the new covenant is all about.

Here are a few facts that I believe, for you to ponder...

I have already written about Jesus being one with God. This also applies not only to the Holy Spirit, but for all those who are born again into eternal life. => We are in Christ and one with God <=

Of course Jesus, when He became a mortal man, regarded the Father as greater than He was, therefore being a model for all believers. This doesn't negate His divine status, regained once He was resurrected. And since we are in Christ, I believe that we also have divine status, i.e., our sins are forgiven and we have eternal life.

This is what I believe regarding husbands and wives... Nothing says the true condition of people who have died to themselves and have a new life in Christ better than Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I don't know why you have a problem with equality, unless you, like the ancient Jews, regard yourself as superior. You take a quote from Peter to bolster your prejudice, but that just shows that you lack understanding.

I believe what the Bible says, specifically what it means to live under the New Covenant. I believe what the Bible says regarding what it means to live and think as a Christian. I (and many others) are overjoyed to be free of the judgement of others and have found peace with God in Jesus Christ.

The Bible does not change the fact that God created Adam first, and Eve was taken from Adam's rib. So they are simply not equal in that primary way, to begin with. Adam was not taken from Eve. They were not created at the same time. First came Adam (from the ground) and then came Eve (from Adam's rib).

 

[blü 2]

If you wish to impose an interpretation on the bible that the text doesn't support, well, that's your problem.

Since you clearly lack an understanding of the gospels, the rest of your nonsensical post doesn't deserve a reply.

Since you clearly don't read your bible critically, but assume it conforms to the stories you've been told, I'll leave you to it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, I believe that when a person accepts God as her/his Savior, s/he becomes one with Him (and with Jesus (the son), and with the Holy Spirit).
If I say that I have a wife and two children, and that we are all one family, yet distinct individuals, does that make it easier to understand?

Yes, easier to understand because 1st Corinthians 11:3 says: the Head of Christ is: God
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Rev. 3:12
Beides God's spirit ("IT") is Not a person ( Numbers 11:17,25; Psalm 104:30 )

 

[jimb]

The Bible does not change the fact that God created Adam first, and Eve was taken from Adam's rib. So they are simply not equal in that primary way, to begin with. Adam was not taken from Eve. They were not created at the same time. First came Adam (from the ground) and then came Eve (from Adam's rib).

And they became "one flesh" (not two).

BTW, "the rib" is not a pure translation. Some Bibles translate it as "his side". Here is the NET footnote re Genesis 2:21: Traditionally translated “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.” The Hebrew text reads, “and he took one from his sides,” which could be rendered “part of his sides.” That idea may fit better the explanation by the man that the woman is his flesh and bone.

And your opinion that they are not equal is just that: your opinion (which just happens to disagree with Genesis 2:23...

"Then the man said,

“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Seems like equality to me!

 

[jimb]

Since you clearly don't read your bible critically, but assume it conforms to the stories you've been told, I'll leave you to it.

Thanks. BTW, I actually read the Bible critically and, even more, understand it. You are the one who assumes it conforms to the stories you've been told.

 

[blü 2]

Thanks. BTW, I actually read the Bible critically and, even more, understand it. You are the one who assumes it conforms to the stories you've been told.

*Chuckle*.

Have a nice day.

 

[blü 2]

And they became "one flesh" (not two).

BTW, "the rib" is not a pure translation. Some Bibles translate it as "his side". Here is the NET footnote re Genesis 2:21: Traditionally translated “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.” The Hebrew text reads, “and he took one from his sides,” which could be rendered “part of his sides.” That idea may fit better the explanation by the man that the woman is his flesh and bone.

And your opinion that they are not equal is just that: your opinion (which just happens to disagree with Genesis 2:23...

"Then the man said,

“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Seems like equality to me!

You seem to be overlooking God's words in Genesis 2:18 which assign to Eve the status of "helper" of the man.

Not to mention Genesis 3:16, where God waxes vindictive and says to Eve, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; [...] your desire shall be for your husband / And he shall rule over you."

Nasty little so and so, that version of God, hein? Good thing it's only a folktale.

 

[jimb]

You seem to be overlooking God's words in Genesis 2:18 which assign to Eve the status of "helper" of the man.

Not to mention Genesis 3:16, where God waxes vindictive and says to Eve, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; [...] your desire shall be for your husband / And he shall rule over you."

Nasty little so and so, that version of God, hein? Good thing it's only a folktale.

Your chauvinism is causing your blindness.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

I have been born again and, unlike yourself, I live under the new covenant.

 

[blü 2]

Your chauvinism is causing your blindness.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

I have been born again and, unlike yourself, I live under the new covenant.

So like the great majority of Christians you don't worship the god of the Tanakh.

'Born again' is an emotional state, generally fostered by one's culture. Correspondingly, to my observation it has very little intellectual content and is opposed to self-analysis and self-criticism.

But I have no argument with freedom of views regarding religion. If that's your fancy, enjoy! (But maybe be a bit careful what you say on the RF debate boards?)