moorea944
Well-Known Member
LOL What???
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus is under subjection to God.
- Thread starter Sculelos
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
You don't know about Israelite history?
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Of course I do. Alittle bit different from your version, but I do.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe He did say He is God by saying that He and the Father are one.
Muffled
Jesus in me
That appears true on the surface but when the facts are viewed there is is not enough evidence to categorically state it.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you are in error because God's omnipresence means that He is alsways at his right hand and his left as well.
outhouse
Atheistically
moorea944
Well-Known Member
The Israelites started with Jacob. But as the years went on, they went away from their God. Back and forth. It's all in the bible.
They did worship other Gods at some points and they were punished for it too. But there is only one true God for Israel.
outhouse
Atheistically
Good luck with that, as Jacob is said to be a literary creation.
Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
it's a theological assertion, not an ontological opinion.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real. Jesus and the apostles even talk about them. I wouldnt even want to waste my time looking up Abraham in Wikipedia. I can just look him up in scripture and learn everything there. I'm sure that is what you do too..... right?
outhouse
Atheistically
False. They factually do not have historicity as existing as I already posted.
It is why you have no evidence or credible sources like I have provided already.
non sequitur.
No they did not, the unknown gospel authors talked about them. They read many books in that time and they followed previous written traditions.
Its backed by credible archeologist and historians, all of which your opinion fails on all academic counts.
Text is text. It was written using mythology and heavy on rhetoric, it was not written as a history book.
Nor does it have 100% credible history.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
People really need to quote the scriptures. The scripture you are referring to is John 14:11 "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake." But then in John 17 we have the following:
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.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Jesus clearly says here that he wants to be in his disciples just like he is in the Father and the Father is in him. It is clear, therefore that Jesus being in the Father does not mean that he is the Father. It merely means that he has the same character as the Father. Just like Jesus wants His disciples to have the same character that he has so that they can have the same character God has. Matt 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.".
Nada
#
Yes...it is speaking of a spiritual union,not a literal one.Jesus and God the Almighty are two separate entities.The holy spirit is never mentioned in this union.Jesus is under subjection to God.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure -- The Father and the Son are two distinct Persons. But they are one God.
Can you reconcile that statement with 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
If the son and the father are one God, why does the Christ HAVE a head over him? The head of Christ being God.
cataway
Well-Known Member
that's a contradiction
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
he's talking about hats, for Pete's sake, and using an example that people can understand in order to drive his point home. How do you reconcile the statement in the same passage that the man is the head of the woman? Or are you a misogynist?
Remember, the biblical writers use a lot of simile and metaphor. "Christ" refers to Jesus-the-human, just as "man is head of the woman" refers to a cultural-specific practice of patriarchy. It's stuff the audience would have understood, when he's making his point about hats.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How? My marriage has two distinct persons -- 1) my wife, 2) me -- yet it's one marriage, each person being coequal in the relationship. When I go to the bank to make a deposit, I represent both of us. I am, in effect, "the Jones family." It's not a contradiction.