Jesus is not God

[TrueBeliever37]

John 19:7

John 10:30-33 He said I and my Father are one. They took up stones to stone him. When asked why they answered - for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man makest thyself God.

 

[rrobs]

John 10:30-33 He said I and my Father are one. They took up stones to stone him. When asked why they answered - for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man makest thyself God.

It is never a good idea to base a doctrine on one verse. The whole of scripture must be considered. If you took a look at a Greek interlinear you would see that the word "God" in verse 33 does not have a definite article ("the"), which is always used when referring to the true God. The same construction is used in 1 Corinthians.

1Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

At the time the scriptures were written, it was understood by those to whom they were given (Jews) that the word "god" meant anybody with power and authority. Jesus would certainly qualify, but that does not make him the one true God, the Father, of 1 Corinthians 8:6. In light of verse 6, it would be awfully hard to squeeze it in a way that would leave it open for Jesus to also be God. Even if we give him the non-scriptural title "God the Son" it would still disqualify him as being the one God, the Father. You really don't have to go beyond Strong's definition of "god" to verify it's meaning.

It is also noteworthy to read a few verses past John 10:33.

John 10:34-36,

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?​

Verse 35 says that each Jew was considered a god. Why? Because God gave them the scriptures. That certainly gave them power and authority and thus made them gods. They may not have used that authority to it's fullest benefit, but God did give them that power and thus made them gods. I didn't write the book. I'm just pointing out what it says.

Also, verse 36 sas Jesus claiming to be the son of God. I am baffled how few Christians there are (about 2%), who apparently are unable to make a clear distinction between a father and a son. Unless we abandon the universally agreed upon meaning of simple words, it is quite impossible to make a son be his own father. In any sense of the words, they are two distinctly different persons.

True, a son shares the nature of it's parent, thus giving Jesus a divine nature, but we also, as born again believers, have a diving nature (2 Peter 1:4). Even a frog shares the nature of it's parent. So while both Jesus and all born again sons of God, have a divine nature, none of us are God Almighty. That title is reserved for the Father and none other. It's about time the orthodox church abandons tradition and holds itself to the truth of God's word.

I pray the day will soon come that Christians will wake up and learn who the true God is. He is not some grotesque 3 persons with one essence fabrication. That makes him a thing, an essence, and not a person. The one true God is our Father, about as far from being a "thing" as it gets. Let's get on board and worship the one true God, the Father, through His only begotten son, the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the plan God had in mind from the very beginning.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

John 10:30-33 He said I and my Father are one. They took up stones to stone him. When asked why they answered - for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man makest thyself God.

Read the Greek for that....there is no “ho Theos”. So really, the Jews were saying, “thou....makest thyself a god.”
And that’s the argument Jesus builds on, in quoting from Psalm 82.

Proof of this, is that, at Jesus’ trial at the Sanhedrin, parts of which were recorded in all 4 Gospel accounts, no one ever accused Jesus of calling Himself God, which they surely would have done, if it were true. They only accused Jesus of calling Himself the Son of God.

No, Jesus only ever said that He was God’s Son.

This also proves that John 8:58, is also mostly mistranslated.... Jesus was simply saying that he was in existence when Abraham was around, that he had been living a lot longer than just being “50 years old.” Again, if Jesus was claiming He was God in that account, they would have accused Him of saying that during His tria.

They didn’t!

 

[rational experiences]

Read the Greek for that....there is no “ho Theos”. So really, the Jews were saying, “thou....makest thyself a god.”
And that’s the argument Jesus builds on, in quoting from Psalm 82.

Proof of this, is that, at Jesus’ trial at the Sanhedrin, parts of which were recorded in all 4 Gospel accounts, no one ever accused Jesus of calling Himself God, which they surely would have done, if it were true. They only accused Jesus of calling Himself the Son of God.

No, Jesus only ever said that He was God’s Son.

This also proves that John 8:58, is also mostly mistranslated.... Jesus was simply saying that he was in existence when Abraham was around, that he had been living a lot longer than just being “50 years old.” Again, if Jesus was claiming He was God in that account, they would have accused Him of saying that during His tria.

They didn’t!

A long time ago on original Earth, before pyramid and machine first science.

That brought the EXTRA ufo mass back to Earth for machine...….the male scientists attacked/converted ground water oxygen mass with microbes, stole it from their owned life, converted self....and mass evaporation put the IMAGE OF GOD, self male human thinker into the cloud.

God the Father history, Father human designer of the states of science and machine reactions.

Eventually all life on Earth destroyed, a huge burning, why archaeology found technology deep inside of Earth and human artefacts inside of coal.

Burning/carbonising of the stone with massive water loss put a lot of above ground living conditions inside of the Earth fusion. Insects inside of amber, etc.

Then Nature re emerged onto Earth when the planet cooled down again and the atmosphere cooled also. New nature with the beast dinosaur mutations.

As the sun owned the cycles of Earth attacked by science, it came again and destroyed the life of dinosaurs and Earth was iced.

Life reincarnated/returned due to ICE, just as the story says, newly born baby human DNA emerged in Genesis.

Then Moses, after the fact of science reinvented/attack on life.

Then Jesus, after the fact of science reinvented/attack on life.....and his image put into the clouds also...so was not like his Father's history, for we no longer own the amount of water mass that Earth once owned.

Reasoning, fact, the UFO that comes to Earth in radiation attack history sucks up a huge water volume as it disintegrates the ground mass into sand from stone bodies. As the UFO is a solid metal formed in space from pressure, as Sun radiation, when it enters our atmosphere it gets a hole burnt into it, by our burning light gases.

It then sucks in the Earth owned atmospheric gases and then our water/oxygen and microbes....how an evil devil alien gets formed inside of a nuclear conversion from the Sun. Always was known by scientific males on Earth seeing they got the result of what they conjured.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A long time ago on original Earth, before pyramid and machine first science.

That brought the EXTRA ufo mass back to Earth for machine...….the male scientists attacked/converted ground water oxygen mass with microbes, stole it from their owned life, converted self....and mass evaporation put the IMAGE OF GOD, self male human thinker into the cloud.

God the Father history, Father human designer of the states of science and machine reactions.

Eventually all life on Earth destroyed, a huge burning, why archaeology found technology deep inside of Earth and human artefacts inside of coal.

Burning/carbonising of the stone with massive water loss put a lot of above ground living conditions inside of the Earth fusion. Insects inside of amber, etc.

Then Nature re emerged onto Earth when the planet cooled down again and the atmosphere cooled also. New nature with the beast dinosaur mutations.

As the sun owned the cycles of Earth attacked by science, it came again and destroyed the life of dinosaurs and Earth was iced.

Life reincarnated/returned due to ICE, just as the story says, newly born baby human DNA emerged in Genesis.

Then Moses, after the fact of science reinvented/attack on life.

Then Jesus, after the fact of science reinvented/attack on life.....and his image put into the clouds also...so was not like his Father's history, for we no longer own the amount of water mass that Earth once owned.

Reasoning, fact, the UFO that comes to Earth in radiation attack history sucks up a huge water volume as it disintegrates the ground mass into sand from stone bodies. As the UFO is a solid metal formed in space from pressure, as Sun radiation, when it enters our atmosphere it gets a hole burnt into it, by our burning light gases.

It then sucks in the Earth owned atmospheric gases and then our water/oxygen and microbes....how an evil devil alien gets formed inside of a nuclear conversion from the Sun. Always was known by scientific males on Earth seeing they got the result of what they conjured.

Really? OK.....

I have to ask: Why do you call yourself “rational experiences”?

 

[rational experiences]

Really? OK.....

I have to ask: Why do you call yourself “rational experiences”?

Because supernatural or phenomena is argued as being irrational. Yet unless you own an experience, then your own ideals about rational ideas in science are proven fake.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Read the Greek for that....there is no “ho Theos”. So really, the Jews were saying, “thou....makest thyself a god.”
And that’s the argument Jesus builds on, in quoting from Psalm 82.

Proof of this, is that, at Jesus’ trial at the Sanhedrin, parts of which were recorded in all 4 Gospel accounts, no one ever accused Jesus of calling Himself God, which they surely would have done, if it were true. They only accused Jesus of calling Himself the Son of God.

No, Jesus only ever said that He was God’s Son.

This also proves that John 8:58, is also mostly mistranslated.... Jesus was simply saying that he was in existence when Abraham was around, that he had been living a lot longer than just being “50 years old.” Again, if Jesus was claiming He was God in that account, they would have accused Him of saying that during His tria.

They didn’t!

He was God, because he was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body. The Father is the eternal Spirit YHWH. The Son is the body the Father made to dwell in and sacrifice. So it is not two different persons, but rather the Spirit and the flesh.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is never a good idea to base a doctrine on one verse. The whole of scripture must be considered. If you took a look at a Greek interlinear you would see that the word "God" in verse 33 does not have a definite article ("the"), which is always used when referring to the true God. The same construction is used in 1 Corinthians.

1Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

At the time the scriptures were written, it was understood by those to whom they were given (Jews) that the word "god" meant anybody with power and authority. Jesus would certainly qualify, but that does not make him the one true God, the Father, of 1 Corinthians 8:6. In light of verse 6, it would be awfully hard to squeeze it in a way that would leave it open for Jesus to also be God. Even if we give him the non-scriptural title "God the Son" it would still disqualify him as being the one God, the Father. You really don't have to go beyond Strong's definition of "god" to verify it's meaning.

It is also noteworthy to read a few verses past John 10:33.

John 10:34-36,

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?​

Verse 35 says that each Jew was considered a god. Why? Because God gave them the scriptures. That certainly gave them power and authority and thus made them gods. They may not have used that authority to it's fullest benefit, but God did give them that power and thus made them gods. I didn't write the book. I'm just pointing out what it says.

Also, verse 36 sas Jesus claiming to be the son of God. I am baffled how few Christians there are (about 2%), who apparently are unable to make a clear distinction between a father and a son. Unless we abandon the universally agreed upon meaning of simple words, it is quite impossible to make a son be his own father. In any sense of the words, they are two distinctly different persons.

True, a son shares the nature of it's parent, thus giving Jesus a divine nature, but we also, as born again believers, have a diving nature (2 Peter 1:4). Even a frog shares the nature of it's parent. So while both Jesus and all born again sons of God, have a divine nature, none of us are God Almighty. That title is reserved for the Father and none other. It's about time the orthodox church abandons tradition and holds itself to the truth of God's word.

I pray the day will soon come that Christians will wake up and learn who the true God is. He is not some grotesque 3 persons with one essence fabrication. That makes him a thing, an essence, and not a person. The one true God is our Father, about as far from being a "thing" as it gets. Let's get on board and worship the one true God, the Father, through His only begotten son, the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the plan God had in mind from the very beginning.

He was the one and only God manifest in the flesh.

1. YHWH said he created everything. He said he was alone and by himself. Isaiah 44:24

Yet according to the scriptures in Colossians 1:14-18 you can see that the one who shed his blood created all things. How can this be? - Because he was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body.

2. YHWH said he was the first and the last. Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12

Now look here in Revelation 22:12-13 and verse 20, and see who it is that says he is the first and the last. (It is the one you claim is not God.) There can only be one who is the first and the last.

3. According to 2 Corinthians 5:10 we will all stand before the judgement seat of Messiah.

Now look at Revelation 21: 5-7 where the one sitting on the throne says in verse 6 that he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. And in verse 7 that he is God.

Next look at Revelation 22:12-13 and verse 20 to see who it is here that says he is the Alpha and Omega, and the beginning and the end. (Once again it is the one you are claiming is not God.)

 

[rational experiences]

Use common sensible human logic.

God the stone body planetary history, was mass crystalline above ground fissional removed into huge sink holes as natural history.

Water fell onto the radiation attack that was opening up stone being present as stone back into just hot gases....so water poured into the body of the stone to seal it shut.

As was taught by research about Earth and where first human male science themes researched came from...about a flooded Earth in natural history.

Then the presence Sun UFO metallic mass caused mass water evaporation back into the gas heavens. Attack ended.

Therefore if you build a machine and cause changes to the natural gas atmosphere...and natural stone history says that the gases were released by stone volcanoes, then God, the body of stone would in extra radiation ground fission attack begin to release water and gas out of its stone body to try to contradict atmospheric evaporation/irradiation...just as told.

For God is only stone and gases burning are the sacrifice of the stone. As an inheritor.

Now males as humans are only males and a son by penis ownership.

Yet you thought on behalf of conditions in natural cosmological history that you did not own, and those forms did not own male or female quotes. You personally as a human applied them.

So when you talk God, just remember you are NOT detailing any human information, you discussed in science relativity how you altered the body of God the stone and formed huge sink holes in it...when water history got removed out of the stone body by you opening the seals of God the stone.

As a rational human advice about why science is a liar.

 

[rrobs]

He was the one and only God manifest in the flesh.

1. YHWH said he created everything. He said he was alone and by himself. Isaiah 44:24

Yet according to the scriptures in Colossians 1:14-18 you can see that the one who shed his blood created all things. How can this be? - Because he was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body.

2. YHWH said he was the first and the last. Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12

Now look here in Revelation 22:12-13 and verse 20, and see who it is that says he is the first and the last. (It is the one you claim is not God.) There can only be one who is the first and the last.

3. According to 2 Corinthians 5:10 we will all stand before the judgement seat of Messiah.

Now look at Revelation 21: 5-7 where the one sitting on the throne says in verse 6 that he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. And in verse 7 that he is God.

Next look at Revelation 22:12-13 and verse 20 to see who it is here that says he is the Alpha and Omega, and the beginning and the end. (Once again it is the one you are claiming is not God.)

If Colossians is saying Jesus is God, what do we do with 1 Corinthians 8:6?

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

Even if there was such a thing as God the Son in the scriptures, he would not be the one God.

​

Also, who is God's God and Father?

John 20:17,

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

God does not have a God or a Father, but Jesus had both.

These two verses (and there are many others) must be made to fit with Colossians or the scriptures contradict themselves. This is what I meant by building a doctrine on one or two verses, especially when there are many clear verses that contradict.

Even within the verses in Colossians that you quoted, there is a problem.

Col 1:15,

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
​

Jesus is the image of God. An image of something is expressly not the thing itself. Remember when Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was on the coin? It was Caesar's image, but the coin was not Caesar himself.

Also how do you explain God, or part of God, being the firstborn? If Jesus was God, who created God?

I can tell you that the key to Colossians is in the prepositions, those little words "in" and "by." If you understood those words, the problems would go away. Otherwise you have to explain who is God's God, who is His Father, and who created Him. It would be much easier to deal with the prepositions.

​

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If Colossians is saying Jesus is God, what do we do with 1 Corinthians 8:6?

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

Even if there was such a thing as God the Son in the scriptures, he would not be the one God.

​

Also, who is God's God and Father?

John 20:17,

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

God does not have a God or a Father, but Jesus had both.

These two verses (and there are many others) must be made to fit with Colossians or the scriptures contradict themselves. This is what I meant by building a doctrine on one or two verses, especially when there are many clear verses that contradict.

What you are failing to see is the distinction is between Spirit and flesh.

Yes there is one God, the Father - who is a Spirit John 4:24

But he didn't have blood to shed for man's sin. So he made himself a body to dwell in and sacrifice for sins. That body was the fleshly body of a man. Could he call the body his Son? Yes - because the Spirit fathered that body. Matthew 1:18

YHWH (the Father) was dwelling in that body(the Son). That was why he could say things like he was before Abraham. John 8:56-59
And - I and my Father are one. John 10:30
And - If you have seen me you have seen the Father. John 14:9

The reason he said things like my Father is greater than I, is because the eternal Spirit is greater than the flesh.
And that flesh did have a God. The scripture says that YHWH is the God of all flesh. That flesh had to be obedient and come under subjection to the Spirit.

Now why don't you explain the things I mentioned in my previous post. Such as Colossians 1:14-18 - where the one who shed the blood was said to have created all things - when it clearly says in Genesis that God was the creator. And Isaiah 44:24 says he was alone and by himself.

And if he was not YHWH manifest in the flesh, explain how both can claim to be the first and the last, and who will be the judge on the throne that says he is God.

 

[rrobs]

What you are failing to see is the distinction is between Spirit and flesh.

Yes there is one God, the Father - who is a Spirit John 4:24

But he didn't have blood to shed for man's sin. So he made himself a body to dwell in and sacrifice for sins. That body was the fleshly body of a man. Could he call the body his Son? Yes - because the Spirit fathered that body. Matthew 1:18

YHWH (the Father) was dwelling in that body(the Son). That was why he could say things like he was before Abraham. John 8:56-59
And - I and my Father are one. John 10:30
And - If you have seen me you have seen the Father. John 14:9

The reason he said things like my Father is greater than I, is because the eternal Spirit is greater than the flesh.
And that flesh did have a God. The scripture says that YHWH is the God of all flesh. That flesh had to be obedient and come under subjection to the Spirit.

Now why don't you explain the things I mentioned in my previous post. Such as Colossians 1:14-18 - where the one who shed the blood was said to have created all things - when it clearly says in Genesis that God was the creator. And Isaiah 44:24 says he was alone and by himself.

And if he was not YHWH manifest in the flesh, explain how both can claim to be the first and the last, and who will be the judge on the throne that says he is God.

Even within the verses in Colossians that you quoted, there is a problem.

Col 1:15,

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

Jesus is the image of God. An image of something is expressly not the thing itself. Remember when Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was on the coin? It was Caesar's image, but the coin was not Caesar himself.

Also how do you explain God, or part of God, being the firstborn? If Jesus was God, who created (or bore) God?

I can tell you that the key to Colossians is in the prepositions, those little words "in" and "by." If you understood those words, the problems would go away. Otherwise you have to explain who is God's God, who is His Father, and who created Him. It would be much easier to deal with the prepositions.

But there is one other you may want to consider. If John 10:30 makes Jesus actually God, then why are we not also God?

John 17:21,

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
​

And why is Paul and Apollos not actually one and the same person?

1Cor 3:6-8,

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
​

Could it be that you misunderstand what it means to be one with another person? I'd give it some consideration at least.

If you answer those questions, I'll answer yours. But if you just keep giving me more verses we will get nowhere. Let's handle the ones we already have before going any further.

God bless.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Even within the verses in Colossians that you quoted, there is a problem.

Col 1:15,

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

Jesus is the image of God. An image of something is expressly not the thing itself. Remember when Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was on the coin? It was Caesar's image, but the coin was not Caesar himself.

Also how do you explain God, or part of God, being the firstborn? If Jesus was God, who created (or bore) God?

I can tell you that the key to Colossians is in the prepositions, those little words "in" and "by." If you understood those words, the problems would go away. Otherwise you have to explain who is God's God, who is His Father, and who created Him. It would be much easier to deal with the prepositions.

But there is one other you may want to consider. If John 10:30 makes Jesus actually God, then why are we not also God?

John 17:21,

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
​

And why is Paul and Apollos not actually one and the same person?

1Cor 3:6-8,

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
​

Could it be that you misunderstand what it means to be one with another person? I'd give it some consideration at least.

If you answer those questions, I'll answer yours. But if you just keep giving me more verses we will get nowhere. Let's handle the ones we already have before going any further.

God bless.

You may not understand, but I at least tried to answer your questions. It appears you can't/won't even make an attempt to answer mine.

That flesh was the image of the invisible God. When God took on that fleshly body, it was his image.

We aren't God because there is a big difference in being made in the image of God like us, versus actually being the image of God. He was God manifest in the flesh.

Your turn to answer my questions.

 

[rrobs]

You may not understand, but I at least tried to answer your questions. It appears you can't/won't even make an attempt to answer mine.

That flesh was the image of the invisible God. When God took on that fleshly body, it was his image.

We aren't God because there is a big difference in being made in the image of God like us, versus actually being the image of God. He was God manifest in the flesh.

Your turn to answer my questions.

Since the coin was the image of Caesar, are you suggesting that Caesar "took on the coin?" What does that even mean? The fact is there is nowhere in the scriptures that says God took on a fleshy body. There are plenty of Pagan religions that make such a claim, but not the scriptures.

Well, if you consider an image of anything to be the image itself, if you consider the image of Caesar on the coin to actually be Caesar, I don't think I could answer your questions. I would have to use words to do that and you don't seem amiable to accepting the usual meaning of words like "image," "son," "father," "firstborn," "person," and others. Not being able to use words in their normal sense, there is not much I can do to reason with you.

 

[rrobs]

And that flesh did have a God. The scripture says that YHWH is the God of all flesh. That flesh had to be obedient and come under subjection to the Spirit.

Does our flesh have to be obedient and come under subjection to the Spirit? If not, then Jesus was in no wise tempted as we are tempted and the book of Hebrews is a bunch of hooey.

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
​

The true beauty of Jesus' accomplishment was that he was a man tempted just like the rest of us, and yet never once succumbed to those temptations. He had the same free will. He could have easily taken the devil up on his offer to gain all the kingdoms of the world. He simply chose not to do that, again, by the same free will God gave to all men. If, as you say, his flesh had to obey the spirit, he would not have had free will. What a boring story! The scriptures are infinitely more exciting to those who understand that Jesus really was a man tempted just like the rest of us.

 

[rational experiences]

When you ask why a defined statement against a Sophist as a human who coerces through the use of Words, to other males stating and the ONE Holy word meaning was exact for each article given a definition in one context.

Such as...we came from the eternal, God also came from the eternal.

And then scientists today wanting to own the same claim that they always wanted....the beginning of where everything came from.

Yet a human says, I did not exist until after the Garden Nature existed. As a science fact.

Does a Nature Garden talk and claim and I was made in the image of God?

No. The only reason why science in Sophism today coerces.

The history of self spiritual memory begins in the eternal...where the eternal spirit changed its own body in one point . which created the end of a mass of the eternal body. . is the smallest circle, the point where space began to emerge...and that is because of historic advice.

Spirit language in the body eternal was a spirit talking to a spirit...so only a spirit owned the language.

Choice to apply variation or change....so God o O was sung up in eternal...therefore a sound had to be forced to change . being the smallest circle.

Then thinning of the eternal mass, then God o O as the angels..not quite a spirit being, but nearly a spirit being, was held encased within o and O.

Why do you think science proved that evil spirits exist, from the burnt eternal history?

Why do you think a human can only own life form inside of an atmosphere and only came out of eternal spirit after that space body was filled back in by gases?

The space body empty was the emptying of pre existing eternal body mass.

Gases put it back, after it had been burnt and cooled.

We came out of the eternal straight into manifestation, changed by the state of conditions, everything irradiated. So we inherited it. We live and die for radiation kills the spirit.

Simple fact of self evidence.

The male self, who said I created God, is confessing that he sent God when he was in eternal from out of eternal. Why do you think he realizes so much about what was destroyed?

If you cared to reason spirit as being the evidence for its own bodily changes.

But science does not....yet science everyday scrutinizes its own scientific studies and statements about God as a spiritual context and power.

For they want God as a beginning, when God has to exist to be created to own creation.

And males in sciences as humans want to own creation.

Being the problem that humans living on the stated God body of their own life ownership which science keeps trying to remove from existing.

Now a Sophist will try to convince everyone that the ANTI PHI ground fall out is God.

Science said it was the Devil mowing.

Light, as gases burning are meant to be above our head.

Science brought the ANTI state to the ground, where life got destroyed.

Just because the patterns own some places, like shells in life, did science ever assume that the shell already existed naturally in ownership and that they tried to ANTI its form...seeing that shell is very ancient?

And science is about what existed before existence itself...so of course some of the ground patterns would own natural identification of pattern that life owned first and then the anti PATTERN existed afterward.

ANTI means to increase the amount of gas mass burning to convert the gas mass back to an evolution history of what it used to be in its past in science conditions.

The stone was cold gases.....to change stone to get energy you have to heat it. To get the atmosphere to give you the radiation signal that begins to open the stone into holes, is for the gases to burn and create the signal. That then attacks the ground also.

Science caused 2 effects. In their machine and reactive theory...and also on the ground.

For the amount of radiation that changed/forced the ground to fission is still the same as it always was. So the ground and life still gets attacked, but just not as severe as the original ANTI attack caused.

Why sink holes opened in new atmospheric experiments, as the fusion has to be given point activation to undo the energy held in mass.....being the Numbers.

+ addition began the term for the cross, maths in science.
Earth originally did not own 4 seasons.
+ the cross of sacrifice relates only to 4 seasons in modern times, due to ICE.

The cross and its meaning to be self sacrificed symbolically and in reference to self, male human and group and choices + to addition of the Numbers to removal of one symbolically meant - minus....one of the cross in Numbers gone by mass removal of to = equals an evaluated outcome of nuclear conversion as the answer.

How old science symbolism says maths + science sacrificed self FIRST.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Does our flesh have to be obedient and come under subjection to the Spirit? If not, then Jesus was in no wise tempted as we are tempted and the book of Hebrews is a bunch of hooey.

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
​

The true beauty of Jesus' accomplishment was that he was a man tempted just like the rest of us, and yet never once succumbed to those temptations. He had the same free will. He could have easily taken the devil up on his offer to gain all the kingdoms of the world. He simply chose not to do that, again, by the same free will God gave to all men. If, as you say, his flesh had to obey the spirit, he would not have had free will. What a boring story! The scriptures are infinitely more exciting to those who understand that Jesus really was a man tempted just like the rest of us.

Why not answer my questions instead of just implying things I haven't said. I didn't say he didn't have free will. My questions show major problems with your belief. That is why you have to avoid them.

Of course he had free will. That is why he said - not my will but thine be done. There is the will of the flesh and the will of the Spirit. They are contrary to one another as scripture says. In order to be the perfect sacrifice his flesh had to come under subjection to the will of the Spirit.

 

[rrobs]

Why not answer my questions instead of just implying things I haven't said. I didn't say he didn't have free will. My questions show major problems with your belief. That is why you have to avoid them.

Of course he had free will. That is why he said - not my will but thine be done. There is the will of the flesh and the will of the Spirit. They are contrary to one another as scripture says. In order to be the perfect sacrifice his flesh had to come under subjection to the will of the Spirit.

Yes, Jesus and God had two different wills. Interesting how that might fit with them being one essence, whatever an essence is. The scriptures don't talk about an essence, so I'm not sure what it means. I like to use the scriptures as my only source of truth. In any case, if this one essence has two wills, it would seem to be a mentally ill essence (multiple personality disorder).

All in all, to me, it is better to accept Jesus as the son of God. There is one person, the Father (the only true God - 1 Cor 8:6), and another person, the son (who is never called God the Son in the scriptures).

I looked back at our conversation and I couldn't find any questions I haven't answered. In fact I didn't find any questions at all. Maybe I missed something. Did I? Let me know, and I'll do my best to answer them.

Also, I didn't mean to imply you saying anything. I was just stating what I see in the scriptures. You are telling me what you see in the scriptures. Isn't that wonderful?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, Jesus and God had two different wills. Interesting how that might fit with them being one essence, whatever an essence is. The scriptures don't talk about an essence, so I'm not sure what it means. I like to use the scriptures as my only source of truth. In any case, if this one essence has two wills, it would seem to be a mentally ill essence (multiple personality disorder).

All in all, to me, it is better to accept Jesus as the son of God. There is one person, the Father (the only true God - 1 Cor 8:6), and another person, the son (who is never called God the Son in the scriptures).

I looked back at our conversation and I couldn't find any questions I haven't answered. In fact I didn't find any questions at all. Maybe I missed something. Did I? Let me know, and I'll do my best to answer them.

Also, I didn't mean to imply you saying anything. I was just stating what I see in the scriptures. You are telling me what you see in the scriptures. Isn't that wonderful?

Hi rrobs,
It amazes me when I read these scriptural threads. I never imagined that I would encounter so many different interpretations of scripture, a large number supplied by people who call themselves Christian.

In Philippians 1:27, Paul says, 'Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.'

Last week I found myself striving against the sabbath doctrine of a Seventh Day Adventist, and now I wonder if I am not getting myself into another doctrinal difference of interpretation with a Unitarian! All I can say is that I pray the Lord forgives me if the discussion bears no fruit!

Here's my question to you: Who is your Saviour?

 

[rrobs]

Hi rrobs,
It amazes me when I read these scriptural threads. I never imagined that I would encounter so many different interpretations of scripture, a large number supplied by people who call themselves Christian.

In Philippians 1:27, Paul says, 'Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.'

Last week I found myself striving against the sabbath doctrine of a Seventh Day Adventist, and now I wonder if I am not getting myself into another doctrinal difference of interpretation with a Unitarian! All I can say is that I pray the Lord forgives me if the discussion bears no fruit!

Here's my question to you: Who is your Saviour?

God, through the work of Jesus Christ, is my savior.

Interpretation is way over blown. For example, did you need to interpret that simple statement? I trust you didn't. It is very simple assertion. Maybe it is true or maybe it isn't, but it certainly didn't take much straining to understand what I meant. I didn't have to ponder the meaning of your reply. All the words and sentences you wrote were very simple to understand. Most everything we read is just like that. It simply says what it means and means what it says.

The problem comes when we interject ideas into the scriptures that simply are not there. When that is done, it becomes necessary to "bend" simple scriptural concepts to fit those unwarranted ideas that are really not there.

Of course there is:

2 Pet 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
​

This specifically says that no one individual has the right to interpret anything. So where does that leave us? Either there is no way we can understand the scriptures or they simply interpret themselves. Personally, I vote for the latter. The scriptures do indeed interpret themselves, so there is no need for me, you, or anybody else to do so.

Here is a good example of the above:

Matt 27:46,

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
​

Why would God wonder where His God went? Makes no sense. On the other hand, if Jesus is not God, then it is easy to understand that he was talking to God. He was quoting Psalm 22 in which David was having a hard time and so he was wondering where God went. It is not unusual for any believer to get discouraged and maybe even have a moment's doubt. I mean, David was the king of God's chosen people and even he got discouraged at times. But if you read the whole Psalm, the question was answered; God went nowhere, He was with David the whole time and in the end caused him to win the victory, which is what God always does.

It's rather amazing to know that at his absolute worse hour Jesus laser focused on the scriptures. It is worth remembering that Jesus asked God 3 times if there was some other way of redeeming us other than being crucified. Of course he ended up saying, "Not my will, but thine be done." God does not have multiple personalities, each with it's own will. No. Jesus had his will and God had His own will. It is clear they were not the same will. Jesus wanted one thing (not to die) and God wanted another thing (Jesus to die). It is sooooo simple. How do Christians miss it????

In any case, if we simply read it as written it makes perfect sense. Jesus was a man, and he talked to our God the same way we all do. It is also clear that he had a completely separate will than did God. One has to do some mighty fancy word twisting, i.e. interpretation, to make Jesus and God one and the same essence, person, or any other word dreamed up at the council of Nicea. When read it as written, it is clear there are two completely separate individuals here, Jesus and God.

I know it is said that it was the "man part" of Jesus that asked God to let the cup pass, that it was the "man part" that momentarily doubted God's presence, that it was the "man part" that spoke to God. Well, my friend, interjecting the words "man part" into the scriptures is nothing less than "one's own interpretation" which we've seen is exactly what 2 Peter 1:21 tells us not to do. Since there is no mention whatsoever of a "man part" of Jesus in the scriptures, it is only one's private interpretation worming it's way where it doesn't belong. It does nothing but screw up an otherwise beautiful narrative and makes a largely incomprehensible jumbo out of it. No wonder few can agree on anything in the scriptures! They don't even understand the natures of the two leading characters! They don't even accept that there are two leading characters! They make the two (three - makes things even worse) into one!

The basic reason then for the divisions is private interpretation. Sadly far too many Christians have more respect for tradition than for the scriptures. I certainly don't blame nor condemn anyone who does so (that is Jesus' job), but I do understand that it is not God's will to be that way. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught, not even those who do the teaching. We have had 2,000 of error regarding the nature of God and Jesus, and 2,000 years of error taught as truth is not easy to overcome. However, I believe that once someone hears the truth, they no longer have an excuse for believing tradition over that truth.

When Paul preached at Corinth they wanted to kill him because he taught things that went against their 4,000 year old doctrine. They refused to accept the changes that Jesus brought. Furthermore, they wanted to kill him even before he was done preaching. In other words, they spent no time at all checking to see if Paul may have been on to something.

Escaping from Corinth, Paul went to Berea and preached the same message to them. What was their reaction?

Acts 17:11,

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
​

They searched the scriptures daily to verify if what Paul told them was true of not. They spent some time doing so, daily means at least 2 days, but I'd suspect probably more. I am always amazed that when I write something that I know people have never heard before, they come back immediately with, "you of full of ...." Well, that just tells me they are more like the Corinthians than the Bereans. Not much I can do about that.

There was a time when I believed Jesus was God. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and had 1 hour of religion classes 5 days a week. They told me Jesus was God and I believed it. It raised a lot of questions in my mind when I read things like God knew things Jesus didn't know, that Jesus died and God couldn't die, and much much more, but I just accepted what I was taught. One day a friend came and told me the same things I'm telling you. Did I immediately forget all I had learned in my religion classes and believe that Jesus really was the son of God and not God Himself? No, I didn't. But neither did I act like the Corinthians and demand the head of my friend on a platter. Instead I went all Berean and searched, not my catechism or prayer book, but the scriptures themselves. It took time, study, and effort, but I was finally forced to realize that the scriptures themselves, apart from any interpretation, make a clear, unmistakable distinction between God and His son, Jesus Christ. And not once seeing the word "essence" in the scriptures themselves, I was able to see the whole "3 persons in one essence" concept was nothing less than the grandest coup the devil has foisted (to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant. Mirian-Webster) upon the Christian church.

Go Berean my friend and you won't regret it!