The Word

[rrobs]

Isn't that what (1Cor.11:1) means?

Maybe there is some similarity, but 1 Cor is a command, whereas Matthew is a statement.

But my point was in quoting Matthew 10:40 was to show that John 12:48 does not mean Jesus is God anymore than we are Jesus and presumably also God.

 

[Nova2216]

Maybe there is some similarity, but 1 Cor is a command, whereas Matthew is a statement.

But my point was in quoting Matthew 10:40 was to show that John 12:48 does not mean Jesus is God anymore than we are Jesus and presumably also God.

To reject Christ's WORDS is to reject Christ Himself. (Jn 12:48)

Jesus is God,therefore to reject Jesus is to reject God. (Jn 1)

 

[rational experiences]

The status, laws, laws in science that related to Earth as relative. Human laws implemented for community shared living standards are historically related to human control by group status/strategies.

To state the descriptive use of a worded language involving laws of various determined reviews states, that the subject of discussion was cause and effect upon the human and Nature life on Earth due to Temple/pyramid sciences as owned by the hierarchy of their day.

2 reviews historically advised that destruction and change/life sacrifice was involved in technology of the past, being the occult. Which is cosmological and also UFO explained about Satanism. Or the review of theming tan effects, as a science symbolism.

Therefore if you rejected the findings, being a complete and complex data and historic review of attacked Genetics, its baby losses in human life, the reasons for the loss, the reason for human healing/returning and reincarnating into healed DNA, and then to have it sacrificed again, was a scientific medical/biological or healer status that involved those laws.

Thus a worded and detailed historic study compiled in a book keeping history of human records after the fact, compiled a detailed descriptive reasoning about occult practices. Why it was worded, written and taught to be believed not just because it was preached, but because it had been witnessed, lawfully and legally.

What the statement said about owning no personal human reason for ignoring the facts of the evidence by a completed DATA compiled study, that involved hearing the statements recorded and fed back in AI conditions, as an actual reviewed historic meaning and human advice.

 

[rrobs]

To reject Christ's WORDS is to reject Christ Himself. (Jn 12:48)

Jesus is God,therefore to reject Jesus is to reject God. (Jn 1)

John 12:48,

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.​

Matt 10:40,

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.​

Any comments on the similarities/differences between Matthew 10:40 and John 12:48?

I'm thinking the idea of agency or representatives would solve the problem. In Matthew, we represent Christ (assuming we speak what he spoke), so if people believe us, the they are really believing Jesus. In John, Jesus represented God, so if people believed him they believed his Father, the one God of 1 Cor 8:6.

Both are the words Jesus spoke, so, as you say, we ought not reject them or we are rejecting Christ himself.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, you can also call it as force because it pulls like a magnet.

But, this force is unable to pull until one get a release from the another force which pull downwards

Hence, the more important question for the one who has found this within "Sound" is.. How to get a release from downward force so that one could be able to travel upwards

Well, according to Taoism, it is not possible to have an upward force without the downward. To be released from one would mean release from both. Nirvana?

 

[rrobs]

Ever checked out " rhema " and " Onoma " ?

Rhema, yes. Onoma, no. Any examples of where it's used?

 

[rrobs]

In order to make Jesus God, we would also have to explain away these other verses.

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Those were just a few examples, there are many, many more. For example, Jesus cannot actually be God if He is the image of God, and Jesus was not invisible, He was visible to many. Also, if Jesus was God there would be no need for a mediator between God and man.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Those and hundreds of others.

I like the one about Jesus being the image of God. If that makes him God then Caesar is a coin.

Luke 20:24,

Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
​

One must abandon the normal, everyday, meaning of words and grammar in order to arrive at the trinity. If we all used the same logic in everyday life, nobody would be able to communicate anything to anybody. Words would loose all meaning. But Trinitarians seem to have no trouble doing just that when it comes to the most important words ever written.

Take care.

 

[chinu]

Well, according to Taoism, it is not possible to have an upward force without the downward. To be released from one would mean release from both. Nirvana?

The basis of my claim is my own practical experience rather than bookish. Therefore IF you hear any kind of sound inside yourself, we can continue the discussion.

Otherwise, I don’t think there’s any kind of benefit to continue the discussion because I don’t think it’s ever possible to understand the real meaning of any script without having a practical experience along with.

That's what I have experienced till now

All the best..

 

[Clear]

I believe I understand what you mean. I think most people would come to the same conclusion as myself regarding what you said. Why? Because you revealed your thoughts by speaking words.

Words have meaning. While it is true, as you said, that no two people see things exactly alike, they do see them enough to read the bus schedule and be at the stop when the bus is scheduled to arrive. For some to read Jesus as God and others to read he is not God, might be akin to two people reading the same schedule and one person says the bus arrives at 6:00 AM while the other says it will arrive at 9:00 PM. I mean it's one or the other. It can't be both.

In short, I propose that there is nothing in the scriptures (composed of words we all pretty much understand) that would cause such a wide variation of meanings. I further propose that tradition, when accepted instead of the scriptures, is the reason for 40,000+ different denominations. Not that have a corner on truth or possess the keys for the "real" Bible. I don't, but I do happen to know the guy that does, i.e., Jesus. If he says he is the son of God then he is the son of God. It doesn't matter that tradition calls him God the Son. The fact is, such an appellation is completely absent from the scriptures theselves.

God bless

Hi rrobs;

IT MATTERS WHAT THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS, THE APOSTLES AND THEIR CONVERTS BELIEVED
I don’t agree with your claim that the earliest Christian traditions don't matter. Historically, it matters if the early Christians and apostles and their adherents traditionally believed Jesus was a “God” of one sort or another or “divine” in one way or another.

IF Jesus IS “the Word” of God of John 1:1, then this places him in a different category than the rest of mankind.

IF Jesus is "the begotten God” described in Greek John 1:18 this places him in a different category than the rest of mankind.

If Jesus was the creator of the worlds, then this places Jesus in a different category than the rest of mankind.

If Jesus remembered the Glory he had with God the Father before his birth, this places him in a different category than the rest of mankind.

If Jesus was sinless then this also is different than all other of mankind.

Something was different about him and he accomplished "God-like" accomplishments. No other man was designated before creation to be the Mediator for mankind. No other man created entire worlds. No other man before him went into the depths of Hades and freed prisoners there. No other man is given the authority to Judge mankind.

At some point, if Jesus accomplished “God-like” accomplishments, then he qualifies to be designated as a "God" or "God-like" (as the the "God like" are described in the Dead Sea Scrolls)

While I described the early Christian beliefs as “traditions”, still, the teachings of the apostles and apostolic Fathers are the closest thing to a description of how they described their interpretation of biblical texts and doctrines and practices representing original Christianity that we have.

These interpretations by those who were taught by the apostles, such as Clement who described what Peter taught him and how the earliest Christian movement interpreted scriptures and doctrines are quite important since they can tell us much about what the earliest christianity was like in it's beliefs and practices.


DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES ARE ANOTHER REASON FOR MULTIPLE CONFLICTING RELIGIOUS THEORIES
Your claim that "tradition, when accepted instead of the scriptures, is the reason for 40,000+ different denominations" seems naive and simplistic and doesn't account for other mechanisms.. You say "there is nothing in the scriptures that would cause such a wide variation of meanings" yet your own personal interpretations are quite different than that of many others, including Clement, who was a colleague of the apostle Peter.

Why does your religion with it’s interpretations take priority or precedent over the early Christian religion and it's interpretations?

Clear
σισιακω

 

[Windwalker]

True enough, but is he tying them together by making them the same thing, or something else? Could he not be saying that the logos became flesh in the sense that Jesus was a perfect example of that logos, or plan?
In other words, God had a plan from the beginning but needed a man to carry out the plan. God outlined the plan in the OT, Jesus read it and understood what it would take and took it upon himself to do it by his own free will.

No. That's not the way it reads. The first and second verses goes into some detail to attempt to explain what the Logos is in John's view. The Logos was "with God", and was God in essence and being. All creation is through the Logos as God's Agent of creation. Not a created being, but God itself as Creator. "All things were created through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made". This excludes Logos as a created being, as nothing that was made was made without the Logos. The Logos is God creating.

Now, when it says explicitly in verse 14, "The Logos was made flesh", that is not saying, "Jesus really got what the Logos was and lived it out in the world as a perfect example." It's clearly saying the Logos took on human form. Compare this with something Paul said in quoting an early Christian hymn in Philippians.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."​

That's saying pretty much the same thing. It's no surprise the author of the gospel according to John incorporated that view of Jesus as the Christ in his prologue, not duplicating Philo's Logos, but using it as a means to talk about something beyond Philo's Logos.

Philo was a Jewish philosopher made it his mission to make the scriptures agree with Greek philosophy. As such, I don't consider him as a source of truth.

I don't think John was suggesting his readers turn to Philo for answers. But he was using a teaching of a well-known philosopher as a starting point to talk about Jesus. Philo's Logos is not exactly the same as John's, but John definitely is riffing off of Philo's Logos in the prologue

Here is some interesting side-by-side comparisons of Philo's and John's Logos. John is clearly speaking to those of the Hellenistic Jewish communities using Philo's Logos and expanding upon it. Comparing Philo's and the Gospel of John's Logos (The Word)

A quick quote from that article linked to just now:

Because we know that these two authors operated at slightly different time periods (i.e. before and after the destruction of the Second Temple), and likely lived in slightly different geographical spheres (i.e. Alexandria and Asia Minor), the striking paradoxical similarities between them are all the more remarkable. And yet, since we know that new ideas, even novel theological ones, do not arise in a vacuum, but are predicted upon past insights and emerge only as an amalgamation of previous thoughts, what all of this suggests to me is that by the early first century CE, a larger discussion was occurring within Jewish circles, particularly around Alexandria, Egypt with respect to how the divine, especially the logos, could be embodied within the material realm and that by the time of the early second century CE this idea had circulated or emerged in Asia Minor as well. Thus, strange as this might seem today, what emerges in later Christianity with respect to the Incarnation, started out as a Jewish thought.​

By the way, almost all of the attendees at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were also quite enamored by Greek philosophy. Does that make them reliable as sources of truth? I think not.

We aren't talking about "reliable "sources. We are talking about what the actual sources were that were used as starting points for discussion. It's hard to deny this, considering all the evidences, such as in that link above. It makes perfect sense. John's theology was not created in a vacuum. It was speaking to something others were already familiar with.

Yes, Jesus is a perfect representation of God, but a representation of something is never the thing itself.

But John says Jesus is the Logos himself. Clearly. And the Logos is not a "representation" of something. It is the something itself.

Figures of speech are used to grab the reader's attention, to make them pause and think. They are not meant to be taken literally. In this case, John called a thing a person in order to show just how perfectly Jesus followed his Father's will. I may be mistaken, but I think that particular figure of speech is called a Personification.

It's not a mere figure of speech. John is outlining a theology about what God is and who Jesus is in relation to God.

 

[chinu]

If question is what’s the relationship between: “God” — “Word” — “Jesus”

Answer is: Its something like the relationship between: “Sun” — “Ray” — “Sunlight”

When in the universe it is “Sun”
Before coming to the earth it is “Ray of Sun”
After coming on to the earth it is “Sunlight”

Hope that helps anybody here to understand the hidden meaning in scriptures

Kindly Note: all that I wrote above is based on my own practical experience, rather bookish.

All the best..

 

[Onoma]

Rhema, yes. Onoma, no. Any examples of where it's used?

Strong's Greek: 3686. ὄνομα (onoma) -- a name, authority, cause

Used in 214 verses in 19 books

A few examples

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

3Jo 1:7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

One concordance says it is presumed to come from a derivative of the base of : γινωσκω ginosko {ghin-oce'-ko} a prolonged form of a primary verb meaning - know , perceive , understand, get knowledge, etc

 

[Nova2216]

John 12:48,

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.​

Matt 10:40,

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.​

Any comments on the similarities/differences between Matthew 10:40 and John 12:48?

I'm thinking the idea of agency or representatives would solve the problem. In Matthew, we represent Christ (assuming we speak what he spoke), so if people believe us, the they are really believing Jesus. In John, Jesus represented God, so if people believed him they believed his Father, the one God of 1 Cor 8:6.

Both are the words Jesus spoke, so, as you say, we ought not reject them or we are rejecting Christ himself.

How does one reject Christ?

How does one accept Christ?

It depends on who you ask, although it should not.

If one rejects any part of Christ words he rejects Christ (Jn 12:48) (Mt. 28:18-20) (1Jn 2:3-6).

 

[rational experiences]

How does one reject Christ?

How does one accept Christ?

It depends on who you ask, although it should not.

If one rejects any part of Christ words he rejects Christ (Jn 12:48) (Mt. 28:18-20) (1Jn 2:3-6).

The teaching against occult nuclear science/transmitting radio waves that belong to nuclear conditions/UFO history stated that the Numbers came out of the Wilderness.

Today science says in the finite I can theme a formula for abstraction from the infinite in a channel and it be never ending. Yet a formula is not a never ending theme, it is a conscious realisation of enabling abstraction from space.

Being cold.

So then science would by will say I knew that I was abstracting from the spatial body for radiation/radio waves involving the manifestation of the UFO mass....that is held cold mass in the spatial vacuum.

And that situation is not any channel it is a mass involved thought upon formula.

Which then imposes hence at some time that abstraction would end, in the finite is about Numbers and when I get to the Numbered history of Earth cycling non stop around the same Sun as a cycle, one day the infinite will be gone/removed.

The empty spatial vacuum is what is then left that kept that radiation mass sealed in between a great huge pit of oblivion and an orbit. What he taught self before in science. Remove that seal in space and then you get sucked out into the explosive release of a huge massive O body of Energy, being God O the planet Earth.

Based on all male conscious aware feed back images of his own satellite UFO from out of space past, that feeds back out of space images as you burn to death.

Why I know, I thought I was going to die when I was being gas burnt fall out irradiated, and I saw lots of transmitted fed back out of space images. I would not be discussing this information unless it happened.

Then you return to the Jesus theme and ask our ancient brother, is that how you learnt information brother Jesus as you got attacked, so did a lot of other humans, you joined groups to argue against occult temple pyramid sciences, and constantly were murdered for challenging the hierarchy of their day until they gained their own last day?

Yes that is exactly how it occurred, as a rational human experience.

 

[Nova2216]

The teaching against occult nuclear science/transmitting radio waves that belong to nuclear conditions/UFO history stated that the Numbers came out of the Wilderness.

Today science says in the finite I can theme a formula for abstraction from the infinite in a channel and it be never ending. Yet a formula is not a never ending theme, it is a conscious realisation of enabling abstraction from space.

Being cold.

So then science would by will say I knew that I was abstracting from the spatial body for radiation/radio waves involving the manifestation of the UFO mass....that is held cold mass in the spatial vacuum.

And that situation is not any channel it is a mass involved thought upon formula.

Which then imposes hence at some time that abstraction would end, in the finite is about Numbers and when I get to the Numbered history of Earth cycling non stop around the same Sun as a cycle, one day the infinite will be gone/removed.

The empty spatial vacuum is what is then left that kept that radiation mass sealed in between a great huge pit of oblivion and an orbit. What he taught self before in science. Remove that seal in space and then you get sucked out into the explosive release of a huge massive O body of Energy, being God O the planet Earth.

Based on all male conscious aware feed back images of his own satellite UFO from out of space past, that feeds back out of space images as you burn to death.

Why I know, I thought I was going to die when I was being gas burnt fall out irradiated, and I saw lots of transmitted fed back out of space images. I would not be discussing this information unless it happened.

Then you return to the Jesus theme and ask our ancient brother, is that how you learnt information brother Jesus as you got attacked, so did a lot of other humans, you joined groups to argue against occult temple pyramid sciences, and constantly were murdered for challenging the hierarchy of their day until they gained their own last day?

Yes that is exactly how it occurred, as a rational human experience.

You do have a way with words.

Thank You.

 

[The Anointed]

I don't know what do you mean by saying the following words HERE:

• Bye-product
• Created ear
• Silent shock waves into sound
• Gravity

Please, do explain in detail so that we could continue discussion.

For your convenience I would also like to add here that this "Exercise" has nothing to do with force-of-gravity because it is NOT related to human body. Its related to human-consciousness instead.

Its "Consciousness-Sound" exercise.

Surely you have heard that if a tree falls in the forest, without an observer being present there is only the silent shock waves traveling out from the points of impact, it is only when a created ear is present, into which those silent shock waves enter and strike the ear drum and are them converted to electric impulses, which are sent to the brain, where those silent shock waves are translated as 'SOUND.'

 

[rrobs]

The basis of my claim is my own practical experience rather than bookish. Therefore IF you hear any kind of sound inside yourself, we can continue the discussion.

Otherwise, I don’t think there’s any kind of benefit to continue the discussion because I don’t think it’s ever possible to understand the real meaning of any script without having a practical experience along with.

That's what I have experienced till now

All the best..

I understand what you are saying, but I myself have not heard any sound inside of myself.

Take care.

 

[rrobs]

Hi rrobs;

IT MATTERS WHAT THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS, THE APOSTLES AND THEIR CONVERTS BELIEVED
I don’t agree with your claim that the earliest Christian traditions don't matter. Historically, it matters if the early Christians and apostles and their adherents traditionally believed Jesus was a “God” of one sort or another or “divine” in one way or another.

IF Jesus IS “the Word” of God of John 1:1, then this places him in a different category than the rest of mankind.

IF Jesus is "the begotten God” described in Greek John 1:18 this places him in a different category than the rest of mankind.

If Jesus was the creator of the worlds, then this places Jesus in a different category than the rest of mankind.

If Jesus remembered the Glory he had with God the Father before his birth, this places him in a different category than the rest of mankind.

If Jesus was sinless then this also is different than all other of mankind.

Something was different about him and he accomplished "God-like" accomplishments. No other man was designated before creation to be the Mediator for mankind. No other man created entire worlds. No other man before him went into the depths of Hades and freed prisoners there. No other man is given the authority to Judge mankind.

At some point, if Jesus accomplished “God-like” accomplishments, then he qualifies to be designated as a "God" or "God-like" (as the the "God like" are described in the Dead Sea Scrolls)

While I described the early Christian beliefs as “traditions”, still, the teachings of the apostles and apostolic Fathers are the closest thing to a description of how they described their interpretation of biblical texts and doctrines and practices representing original Christianity that we have.

These interpretations by those who were taught by the apostles, such as Clement who described what Peter taught him and how the earliest Christian movement interpreted scriptures and doctrines are quite important since they can tell us much about what the earliest christianity was like in it's beliefs and practices.


DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES ARE ANOTHER REASON FOR MULTIPLE CONFLICTING RELIGIOUS THEORIES
Your claim that "tradition, when accepted instead of the scriptures, is the reason for 40,000+ different denominations" seems naive and simplistic and doesn't account for other mechanisms.. You say "there is nothing in the scriptures that would cause such a wide variation of meanings" yet your own personal interpretations are quite different than that of many others, including Clement, who was a colleague of the apostle Peter.

Why does your religion with it’s interpretations take priority or precedent over the early Christian religion and it's interpretations?

Clear
σισιακω

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
​

Why go and change that to, "Sanctify them through thy truth and the traditions of the early Christians: thy word and the traditions of the early Christians is truth."

You mentioned Clement as a source of truth. Did you read the verses I quoted that say the dead are really dead? If so, how does that square with Clement saying Peter is in "his appointed place of glory?"

Please go over my posts and find anywhere that I "interpreted" anything. I think I've only quoted verses and commented on the obvious meaning of those verses. Can you tell me specifically where I interpreted (I guess misinterpreted?) any of the verses.

Grammar is there so we all have a common ground from which we can use words to communicate. It is a rather precise tool, able to convey one person's thoughts to another. Normally we don't interpret what we read. We just read what's written and take it for what it's worth.

A good example is this reply. I'm not saying anything very obtuse, so it should be obvious to any body that reads my words what I am saying. In other words, there is no need to interpret anything. Doing so only leads to confusion as we get 4,000 different versions of what I saying in very simple grammar with simple words, words that we all have agreed upon as to their meaning. Why change the meaning of "dead" when we read the scriptures? Why equate death with glory and holiness? That's insane!

 

[rrobs]

No. That's not the way it reads. The first and second verses goes into some detail to attempt to explain what the Logos is in John's view. The Logos was "with God", and was God in essence and being.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that God can be "with" God and "be" God at the same time? That is not a normal usage of words. Does that mean anything to you? What?

Why could it not be saying God had a plan in the beginning? A plan is a perfectly valid translation of the word logos. It's so simple. John is just telling us that God had a plan to redeem mankind. God communicated that plan via the written word in the OT. He then more perfectly communicated that plan via Jesus, i.e., the word became flesh. Does a word normally become a person? I don't think so, therefore John 1:1 and John 1:14 both use figures of speech.

A figure of speech is meant to emphasize something, to make the reader pause and consider deeply what was just said. In the case of 1:1, God wants to let us know how His plan embodies His very thoughts, intents, and goals. John 1:14 emphasizes how perfectly Jesus carried out the plan.

I've given you my best understanding of John in such a way that it does not make Jesus God. Why? Because I keep think of a verse in Corinthians.

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.​

I would think that even a 6th or 8th grade reader, when asked who is the one God, would say the Father.

The I think about verses that say God knew more than Jesus, that God granting Jesus the power of judgment (God giving to God?), that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father (God sitting on His own hand?), Jesus will be subject to God (God is subject to God? - 1 Cor 15:28).

I could give tons more examples of verses that in no way make Jesus and God one and the same. One is the Father and the other is His son. How can such a simple concept get so screwed up?

 

[rrobs]

Strong's Greek: 3686. ὄνομα (onoma) -- a name, authority, cause

Used in 214 verses in 19 books

A few examples

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

3Jo 1:7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

One concordance says it is presumed to come from a derivative of the base of : γινωσκω ginosko {ghin-oce'-ko} a prolonged form of a primary verb meaning - know , perceive , understand, get knowledge, etc

Duh! I must have had a mental lapse. I do know that word and that it is used a bunch. I'll go back and read where you first mentioned it and see if it makes more sense to me. It probably will. Thanks for the clarification.