>>I am sorry you ffel that accepting the Bible's original autographs is considered worship. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.
I'm sorry you believe genocide to be God breathed too. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.
>>Just know that I do consider it inspired by God, and I do not worship it.
It's one thing to honor the teachings of Jesus. It's another entirely to suggest Joshua running around commiting acts of genocide against his enemies was God inspired. It's your unwillingness to explain what "inspired" means exactly that I find rather difficult to swallow.
>>Maybe I am just the exceptiojn to the rule.. but there it is.
And maybe you are just naive too.
M>If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.
>>Only in your mind, dude. I can accept is as inspired and not worship it.
Anyone who holds a book up and claims it to be the inerrant word of God is upleveling this "book" to the godhood. It's bible worship. No book can or ever will be "perfect".
>>Just becasue you can't firgure out how doesn't mean i can't..
You won't even come up with a testable definition of "inspired" in the first place! How you can define "inspired" here so that you can clearly demonstrate Joshua was inspired when hacking children to death, whereas Hilter was not inspired for gassing them to death. Why is that? Can you?
>>it just means you don't understand.
I don't understand because you won't even define what "inspired" means. How can it be insprired to hack children to death house by house by bloody house?
>>Og and indeed I DO NOT accept I am Bible worshipping. Nuff said. I am really getting tired of you claiming I say or beleive things I don't.
Fine.
M>but you are saying two things here which contradict one another.
>>Based upon your perception. They do not contradict..
Yes they certainly do. If you refuse to consider that killing children isn't God inspired, I'd say you've left your sanity checked at the church door.
>>you just think they do.
I KNOW they do.
>>Noting i can do about that. You could ignore what you think and accept what I say, and trust what I say, but you don't.
Ditto. Why don't you?
M>You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship.
>>Becasue it isn't Bible worship.
What is it then that suggest that killing babies is God inspired?
M>I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.
>>That's probably becasue I do not see the contradiction. You have made it up in your head.
That's bs. If you won't look honestly at the text and consider it's source (HUMANS), there is little more I can say. You have now elevated all the unknown authors to divine status without even explaining what inspiration really is in any testable way.
M>Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.
>>Exactly.. just aonthe guy with an opinion. I have said what I said. you don't agree.. fine.. keep it to yourself then.
Fine, but I'm not the one suggesting baby killers are "divinely inspired".
M>You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.
>>Yep.. sure do. Deal with it. I claim it infallible, and that claim, I do not do for the sake of the Bible, but for the sake of who inspired it.
You may wan't to believe those baby killers were inspired for going house to house slaughtering innocent people, but I surely do not. I do nothing for their sakes. Their guilt is all recorded in gruesome detail.
>>If any worship is going on, I am worshipping God, who inspired the thing, not the thing it self. Just drop it Michael.
Fine I'll just drop the subject, and ignore the rest of your comments about this in this thread. You can however worship God and still not believe Joshua was inspired for hacking children to death.
M>Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?
>>Again.. I repest myself for the blind.. I do beleive it.. I do not beleive it as you beleive it.
You choose to believe an invention of the church over the direct quotes from Jesus himself as I see it.
M>Fortunately he provides on(e) in John 17
>
oes not! Oh, and my God can beat up your god!
No doubt. Your's seems rather violent.
M>John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God.
>>Actually John makes it clear that both are true. Heh, go figure.. John, a beleiver in the Trinity. Whoa!
No, he doesn't do that. In fact John (disciple) goes out of his way to explain in great detail how Jesus explained his relationship with God. Some of the best stuff on this subject is recorded in John. We ought to look for some areas in similarity here sooner or later though rather than rehash this in thread after thread.
M>You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.
>>You are worng about that.. but whatever.. I can say the same thing to you.
Well, indeed, we've reached that point of "opinion" and "interpretation". I choose to follow what Jesus said, and believe we are all capable of union with God and with him and that we are all one in God.
M>You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood.
>>Not useful to oyu, becasu you do not understand. BUt i di giv you a definition.
A useful definition here would be one that allows us to clearly see how Joshua hacking innocent children to death is somehow more inspired than say Hitler gassing them wholesale.
>>Thoruhg inspiration! Please, class, pay attention.
How about a useful definition to work with here "teach". How can you objectively prove Joshua was inspired?
M>Through the presense of the Holy Spirit?
>>No.. through inspiration of God.
What form would that take if not through the Holy Spirit?
M>The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love.
>>Me to. He also insists God is other things as well.. but Love is one of them.
Sure, and God has a wonderful sense of humor. God assures me though that killing your neighbors children is no way to solve a religious dispute.
M>John agrees with me.
>>That's up for debate all over this board.
John did say God is Love, and that the spirit of truth was love. You can't hide from that fact.
M>Genocide is not a loving act.
>>Tis true.
Then why was Joshua doing it to his neighbors children?
M>How do you explain this?
>>Explain what That God is more than Love, and able to commit an act that is not about love, but about somehting else, like Justice?
How can killing an infant for their parents crimes be considered justice?
M>He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.
>>ROFL! Dude.. whatever... He did not... and FYI.. the SOn of God was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I also assumed you knew I beleved that... guess not.
I didn't see you post much useful the last time I brought the John 3 thread back up. Jesus was refering to the Holy Spirit throughout his dialog with Nicodemus.
M>Jesus *doesn't* say this however.
> oes to! (Does not. Does to. My God can beat up your god.)
The real God doesn't beat things up for the fun of it.
M>Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys.
>>Ok Class.. together now.. "That Union is not Godhood."
And I did not claim that it was. It is unity "with" the Godhood.
M>To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.
>>Great then.. I elivate the union to a fellowship with God, which we all can have.. and that, does not in-validate the Trinity. YAY!
Like I said all along, it's not the trinity doctrine I have a tough time with, it's the claims of exclusivity that Jesus teaches against.
M>It gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about.
>>This coming form someone who thinks God is a woman.
I've stated repeatedly that I'm sex "neutral". I just think it's sexist to keep refering to God as a "he".
>And, yes it is about relationship! That what the "oneness" is about... sheesh. Having a relationship with God does not make us God, it did not make Jesus God. Jesus was already God.
That would be your opinion, but this isn't what Jesus claimed. He claimed to be the *SON* of the ONE TRUE God. I'm not making it up, I'm reading it the red lettering parts of the Gospels.
M>We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source.
>>Again.. I never siad this. The Holy Spirit doid not acsend from the Son to the Son... He ascended form the Father to the Son.
You keep separating these "individuals" whenever you see fit and putting them together with bubble gum and bailing wire when it suits you too. What was Jesus afraid of, and who did he pray to the night before his death?
M>I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?
>>You do to. You claim that Jesus is not the Word,
No, I didn't really say that. I said he was UNIFIED WITH THE WORD. You keep twisting my meaning around to suit yourself too I see.
>>and thuse claim that teh Word did not come as Flesh.
No, I didn't make that claim at all. I said that Jesus was unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit. That's what I said. In that way, he is indeed the "Word" made flesh.
>>Since John teaches that the Word is Jesus, you then imply that Jesus (The Word that existed before time) did not come in the Flesh, but rather that Jesus bacem it after some period of time.
Actually, the bible insinuates that itself by suggesting that the Holy Spirit descended upon him AFTER baptism.
>>What am I suggesting? That your teachings and theology are in the Spirit of the Anti-Christ. You are a false prophet, know it or not.
Well, I think it's a tad insulting to be compared to the Anti-Christ for following Christs teachings.
Would you please show me where I ever claimed to be a "prophet" of any kind?
M>You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.
>>Yes I am. Yes He was. Yes He did. Yes it is.
Why does Jesus feel fear? What does God have to fear, or is this one of those transformer routines again where you rip the trilogy apart when it suits you?
M>And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things.
>>I don't ijnterprate them.. I accept them for what they say. I think Johnmeant what he wrote, and wrote what he meant.
You accept what the church told you he meant, nothing more. Jesus himself is quite clear their is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. I don't know how he could have made it any clearer in fact.
M>Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?
>>The writer of the book of John! come on.. stay in the game.
Patronizing too I see. John the disciple is referencing John the baptist at times. You seem to be intermixing their statements at will.
M>Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.
>>Nice dodge.. heh.
No, I thought I was quite honest about my feelings here. For you faith to work, Jesus had to be perfect, a book has to be perfect, and a religion has to be perfect. My faith requires none of these things to remain whole. I suggest you consider what I'm saying here. I can fully accept Jesus as a real human man, capable of making human mistakes, and still know him to be the Messiah. Can you?
M>The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.
>>Two things here Michael 1, The Holy Spirit id ont the Word. 2. The Holy Spirit is not of God.. The Holy Spirit is God.
In your trilogy world, I'm sure that's true. Depending on how you define that precisely, I might even find some middle ground with you. The point however is that Jesus makes a clear and significant distinction between himself and God. I can't deny that fact either.
M>He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part....
Not!
So explain his fear again to me? Didn't say the fear was not of God, and could not exist in perfect love? How you come to terms with these statements when looked at together?
M>The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born.
>>two things: Jesis is the Word and How could Jesus exist before He was born, unless He was God?
Jesus the man was created via dna. Jesus the soul is ancient. He says so himself. I see no reason to disbelieve him, and every reason to believe him. All things however are created by the ONE TRUE God to whom Jesus prays and asks for help.
M>The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.
>>Sounds like the Anti-Christ to me. Where did you dream up this? It isn't in the Bible...
It is in the bible, and I'm getting tired of being villianized by you tonight. How about laying of the Anti-Christ comparisons a while, and show a bit of "Christian" tollerance for subtle variations in beliefs. I think the villianizing is more than a little beneath you frankly.
>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?
M>I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.
>>Yeah.. umm.. that's fine and all.. but answer the question.. If Jesus isn't God, then why is He worshipped?
Because humans like to do that? Islam does not "worship" Jesus the way you do. Even some christians sects don't "worship" Jesus the way you do. (See ed's sect).
M>I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.
>>You lost me... Oh and what do you think about Jesus not rebuking anyone for worshipping Him?
I'm not altogether clear that Jesus "doesn't" explain it to him. I only got a portion of the conversation to work with. This is a little like me asking why Jesus didn't rebuke the apostles for asking him if the blind man had caused his own blindness as being impossible. You can only get so far with that logic.
Jesus fortunately didn't leave us with some veiled "non-comment", he explains the relationship in great detail.
M>I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?
>>Hm.. well, sorry to Dissapoint you.
Well, it's sure funny that I can find numberous examples of him refering to God in the third person and you can't find one where he refers to himself in God the first person. How disappointing indeed when looking through the whole of his teachings that you can't find a single instance within his teachings to support you ideas.
M>Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.
>>Ohh that's right.. if scripture does not agree with oyu, it is false.. I forgot.. my bad.
No, that's the way you play it. It's fine to believe Thomas, but who's going to believe God himself, or Jesus? What do they matter? You'd rather believe in everyone else.
M>Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired.
>>Well, sorry but I disagree with you. The bble validates itself, thorugh a MIracle of God. You only thnk parts of it are inspired by God becasue if the whole ting was, you know you would go to Hell.
I have absolutely no fear of the myth the church invented ZC. I know God. I trust God. I do not fear God. If you are so certain it's "inspired", you ought to be able to define "inspiration" in a useful way that we could us to compare Joshua actions with those of Hilter to see conclusively what makes one inspired and the other lost. You've yet to do that now after weeks of me prodding you.
M>All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah.
>>To bad you can't back this up with proof eh?
Too bad that I can eh? Even within your beloved bible are the seeds of real truth. You can't deny that God refers to Jesus as his SON. You can't deny Jesus felt fear the night before his death. You can't deny that Jesus called God the ONE TRUE God either.
M>Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet?
>>Nope.. you must not be God.
Yet according to Jesus, I'm equally capable of achieving union with God in the same way he did. Go figure....
M>So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.
>>Sorry, but you didn't exsit before God created you. Jesus on the other hand wa never created.
Though I have no memories outside of this lifetime, I know my soul is ancient. This particular incarnation is 41 years old, but my soul is *FAR* older. You are no different.
>>The writer of the Book john! sheesh. John think s Jesus is God. Sorry, but he does. No amount of "rationalizing will change that.
You seem to be intermixing the teachings of John the baptist here and John the disciple. Even in John 1, John refers to Jesus as the SON of God. According to the gospels, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus *AFTER* baptism, and then God himself calls Jesus his beloved Son. Jesus himself calls God the one true God, and prays to this heavenly father the night before his death. Nothing any of you can do will change any of this either.
I'm sorry you believe genocide to be God breathed too. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.
>>Just know that I do consider it inspired by God, and I do not worship it.
It's one thing to honor the teachings of Jesus. It's another entirely to suggest Joshua running around commiting acts of genocide against his enemies was God inspired. It's your unwillingness to explain what "inspired" means exactly that I find rather difficult to swallow.
>>Maybe I am just the exceptiojn to the rule.. but there it is.
And maybe you are just naive too.
M>If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.
>>Only in your mind, dude. I can accept is as inspired and not worship it.
Anyone who holds a book up and claims it to be the inerrant word of God is upleveling this "book" to the godhood. It's bible worship. No book can or ever will be "perfect".
>>Just becasue you can't firgure out how doesn't mean i can't..
You won't even come up with a testable definition of "inspired" in the first place! How you can define "inspired" here so that you can clearly demonstrate Joshua was inspired when hacking children to death, whereas Hilter was not inspired for gassing them to death. Why is that? Can you?
>>it just means you don't understand.
I don't understand because you won't even define what "inspired" means. How can it be insprired to hack children to death house by house by bloody house?
>>Og and indeed I DO NOT accept I am Bible worshipping. Nuff said. I am really getting tired of you claiming I say or beleive things I don't.
Fine.
M>but you are saying two things here which contradict one another.
>>Based upon your perception. They do not contradict..
Yes they certainly do. If you refuse to consider that killing children isn't God inspired, I'd say you've left your sanity checked at the church door.
>>you just think they do.
I KNOW they do.
>>Noting i can do about that. You could ignore what you think and accept what I say, and trust what I say, but you don't.
Ditto. Why don't you?
M>You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship.
>>Becasue it isn't Bible worship.
What is it then that suggest that killing babies is God inspired?
M>I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.
>>That's probably becasue I do not see the contradiction. You have made it up in your head.
That's bs. If you won't look honestly at the text and consider it's source (HUMANS), there is little more I can say. You have now elevated all the unknown authors to divine status without even explaining what inspiration really is in any testable way.
M>Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.
>>Exactly.. just aonthe guy with an opinion. I have said what I said. you don't agree.. fine.. keep it to yourself then.
Fine, but I'm not the one suggesting baby killers are "divinely inspired".
M>You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.
>>Yep.. sure do. Deal with it. I claim it infallible, and that claim, I do not do for the sake of the Bible, but for the sake of who inspired it.
You may wan't to believe those baby killers were inspired for going house to house slaughtering innocent people, but I surely do not. I do nothing for their sakes. Their guilt is all recorded in gruesome detail.
>>If any worship is going on, I am worshipping God, who inspired the thing, not the thing it self. Just drop it Michael.
Fine I'll just drop the subject, and ignore the rest of your comments about this in this thread. You can however worship God and still not believe Joshua was inspired for hacking children to death.
M>Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?
>>Again.. I repest myself for the blind.. I do beleive it.. I do not beleive it as you beleive it.
You choose to believe an invention of the church over the direct quotes from Jesus himself as I see it.
M>Fortunately he provides on(e) in John 17
>
oes not! Oh, and my God can beat up your god! No doubt. Your's seems rather violent. M>John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God.
>>Actually John makes it clear that both are true. Heh, go figure.. John, a beleiver in the Trinity. Whoa!
No, he doesn't do that. In fact John (disciple) goes out of his way to explain in great detail how Jesus explained his relationship with God. Some of the best stuff on this subject is recorded in John. We ought to look for some areas in similarity here sooner or later though rather than rehash this in thread after thread.
M>You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.
>>You are worng about that.. but whatever.. I can say the same thing to you.
Well, indeed, we've reached that point of "opinion" and "interpretation". I choose to follow what Jesus said, and believe we are all capable of union with God and with him and that we are all one in God.
M>You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood.
>>Not useful to oyu, becasu you do not understand. BUt i di giv you a definition.
A useful definition here would be one that allows us to clearly see how Joshua hacking innocent children to death is somehow more inspired than say Hitler gassing them wholesale.
>>Thoruhg inspiration! Please, class, pay attention.
How about a useful definition to work with here "teach". How can you objectively prove Joshua was inspired?
M>Through the presense of the Holy Spirit?
>>No.. through inspiration of God.
What form would that take if not through the Holy Spirit?
M>The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love.
>>Me to. He also insists God is other things as well.. but Love is one of them.
Sure, and God has a wonderful sense of humor. God assures me though that killing your neighbors children is no way to solve a religious dispute.
M>John agrees with me.
>>That's up for debate all over this board.
John did say God is Love, and that the spirit of truth was love. You can't hide from that fact.
M>Genocide is not a loving act.
>>Tis true.
Then why was Joshua doing it to his neighbors children?
M>How do you explain this?
>>Explain what That God is more than Love, and able to commit an act that is not about love, but about somehting else, like Justice?
How can killing an infant for their parents crimes be considered justice?
M>He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.
>>ROFL! Dude.. whatever... He did not... and FYI.. the SOn of God was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I also assumed you knew I beleved that... guess not.
I didn't see you post much useful the last time I brought the John 3 thread back up. Jesus was refering to the Holy Spirit throughout his dialog with Nicodemus.
M>Jesus *doesn't* say this however.
>
oes to! (Does not. Does to. My God can beat up your god.)The real God doesn't beat things up for the fun of it.
M>Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys.
>>Ok Class.. together now.. "That Union is not Godhood."
And I did not claim that it was. It is unity "with" the Godhood.
M>To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.
>>Great then.. I elivate the union to a fellowship with God, which we all can have.. and that, does not in-validate the Trinity. YAY!
Like I said all along, it's not the trinity doctrine I have a tough time with, it's the claims of exclusivity that Jesus teaches against.
M>It gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about.
>>This coming form someone who thinks God is a woman.
I've stated repeatedly that I'm sex "neutral". I just think it's sexist to keep refering to God as a "he".
>And, yes it is about relationship! That what the "oneness" is about... sheesh. Having a relationship with God does not make us God, it did not make Jesus God. Jesus was already God.
That would be your opinion, but this isn't what Jesus claimed. He claimed to be the *SON* of the ONE TRUE God. I'm not making it up, I'm reading it the red lettering parts of the Gospels.
M>We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source.
>>Again.. I never siad this. The Holy Spirit doid not acsend from the Son to the Son... He ascended form the Father to the Son.
You keep separating these "individuals" whenever you see fit and putting them together with bubble gum and bailing wire when it suits you too.
What was Jesus afraid of, and who did he pray to the night before his death?M>I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?
>>You do to. You claim that Jesus is not the Word,
No, I didn't really say that. I said he was UNIFIED WITH THE WORD. You keep twisting my meaning around to suit yourself too I see.
>>and thuse claim that teh Word did not come as Flesh.
No, I didn't make that claim at all. I said that Jesus was unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit. That's what I said. In that way, he is indeed the "Word" made flesh.
>>Since John teaches that the Word is Jesus, you then imply that Jesus (The Word that existed before time) did not come in the Flesh, but rather that Jesus bacem it after some period of time.
Actually, the bible insinuates that itself by suggesting that the Holy Spirit descended upon him AFTER baptism.
>>What am I suggesting? That your teachings and theology are in the Spirit of the Anti-Christ. You are a false prophet, know it or not.
Well, I think it's a tad insulting to be compared to the Anti-Christ for following Christs teachings.
Would you please show me where I ever claimed to be a "prophet" of any kind?
M>You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.
>>Yes I am. Yes He was. Yes He did. Yes it is.
Why does Jesus feel fear? What does God have to fear, or is this one of those transformer routines again where you rip the trilogy apart when it suits you?
M>And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things.
>>I don't ijnterprate them.. I accept them for what they say. I think Johnmeant what he wrote, and wrote what he meant.
You accept what the church told you he meant, nothing more. Jesus himself is quite clear their is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. I don't know how he could have made it any clearer in fact.
M>Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?
>>The writer of the book of John! come on.. stay in the game.
Patronizing too I see. John the disciple is referencing John the baptist at times. You seem to be intermixing their statements at will.
M>Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.
>>Nice dodge.. heh.
No, I thought I was quite honest about my feelings here. For you faith to work, Jesus had to be perfect, a book has to be perfect, and a religion has to be perfect. My faith requires none of these things to remain whole. I suggest you consider what I'm saying here. I can fully accept Jesus as a real human man, capable of making human mistakes, and still know him to be the Messiah. Can you?
M>The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.
>>Two things here Michael 1, The Holy Spirit id ont the Word. 2. The Holy Spirit is not of God.. The Holy Spirit is God.
In your trilogy world, I'm sure that's true. Depending on how you define that precisely, I might even find some middle ground with you. The point however is that Jesus makes a clear and significant distinction between himself and God. I can't deny that fact either.
M>He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part....
Not!
So explain his fear again to me? Didn't say the fear was not of God, and could not exist in perfect love? How you come to terms with these statements when looked at together?
M>The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born.
>>two things: Jesis is the Word and How could Jesus exist before He was born, unless He was God?
Jesus the man was created via dna. Jesus the soul is ancient. He says so himself. I see no reason to disbelieve him, and every reason to believe him. All things however are created by the ONE TRUE God to whom Jesus prays and asks for help.
M>The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.
>>Sounds like the Anti-Christ to me. Where did you dream up this? It isn't in the Bible...
It is in the bible, and I'm getting tired of being villianized by you tonight. How about laying of the Anti-Christ comparisons a while, and show a bit of "Christian" tollerance for subtle variations in beliefs. I think the villianizing is more than a little beneath you frankly.
>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?
M>I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.
>>Yeah.. umm.. that's fine and all.. but answer the question.. If Jesus isn't God, then why is He worshipped?
Because humans like to do that? Islam does not "worship" Jesus the way you do. Even some christians sects don't "worship" Jesus the way you do. (See ed's sect).
M>I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.
>>You lost me... Oh and what do you think about Jesus not rebuking anyone for worshipping Him?
I'm not altogether clear that Jesus "doesn't" explain it to him. I only got a portion of the conversation to work with. This is a little like me asking why Jesus didn't rebuke the apostles for asking him if the blind man had caused his own blindness as being impossible. You can only get so far with that logic.
Jesus fortunately didn't leave us with some veiled "non-comment", he explains the relationship in great detail.
M>I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?
>>Hm.. well, sorry to Dissapoint you.
Well, it's sure funny that I can find numberous examples of him refering to God in the third person and you can't find one where he refers to himself in God the first person. How disappointing indeed when looking through the whole of his teachings that you can't find a single instance within his teachings to support you ideas.
M>Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.
>>Ohh that's right.. if scripture does not agree with oyu, it is false.. I forgot.. my bad.
No, that's the way you play it. It's fine to believe Thomas, but who's going to believe God himself, or Jesus? What do they matter? You'd rather believe in everyone else.
M>Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired.
>>Well, sorry but I disagree with you. The bble validates itself, thorugh a MIracle of God. You only thnk parts of it are inspired by God becasue if the whole ting was, you know you would go to Hell.
I have absolutely no fear of the myth the church invented ZC. I know God. I trust God. I do not fear God. If you are so certain it's "inspired", you ought to be able to define "inspiration" in a useful way that we could us to compare Joshua actions with those of Hilter to see conclusively what makes one inspired and the other lost. You've yet to do that now after weeks of me prodding you.
M>All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah.
>>To bad you can't back this up with proof eh?
Too bad that I can eh? Even within your beloved bible are the seeds of real truth. You can't deny that God refers to Jesus as his SON. You can't deny Jesus felt fear the night before his death. You can't deny that Jesus called God the ONE TRUE God either.
M>Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet?
>>Nope.. you must not be God.
Yet according to Jesus, I'm equally capable of achieving union with God in the same way he did. Go figure....
M>So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.
>>Sorry, but you didn't exsit before God created you. Jesus on the other hand wa never created.
Though I have no memories outside of this lifetime, I know my soul is ancient. This particular incarnation is 41 years old, but my soul is *FAR* older. You are no different.
>>The writer of the Book john! sheesh. John think s Jesus is God. Sorry, but he does. No amount of "rationalizing will change that.
You seem to be intermixing the teachings of John the baptist here and John the disciple. Even in John 1, John refers to Jesus as the SON of God. According to the gospels, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus *AFTER* baptism, and then God himself calls Jesus his beloved Son. Jesus himself calls God the one true God, and prays to this heavenly father the night before his death. Nothing any of you can do will change any of this either.
Upvote
0
