Has these titles, which are often used to describe Christ's relationship with God, been taken out of context? Or do you honestly believe that Jesus Christ is God's son? I wonder, can a
person still be a Christian, and yet believe that Christ is not the son of God? What are your thoughts on the issue?
I can't see how.
If one believes the myth, one must be a believer in christ as the son of god as instructed by the doctrine (according to the bible, which is the source of the belief itself.)
doctrines are only as good as the acceptance level of the person who QUESTIONS them.
If a person has a question about, say, trinity.. although it is taught one can do their own research into the topic and either escape or agree.
No one is born into a denomination.
It is not a sin to question doctrine.
And if one wants to find a bible based answer, one should look to the bible of course.
Any follower of any religion MUST believe what the doctrines command them to believe, not what they want to believe. If they don't believe as they are instructed to believe, they can only call themselves hypocrites.
Yeah, I MUST..... well now that never worked for me. I must do whatever I like, and I must believe whatever I like. I don't care about the hypocrites. I'm not scared of doctrine, nor of those who bully there way thru and push the doctrine down peoples throat. For one I out school most of them, including preaches, in biblical history, theory and law. Therefore, I know more than the average wanna-be evangelical Christian knows about their own protestant faith. So I MUST...., nah, I MUST take a poop when the duty calls, but anything other than that I don't have to do..., and I guess, if I desired to make myself really sick, I wouldn't have to go to the bathroom....
That's fine, but if you are a follower of any particular religion and not following the doctrines as intended, then you're going against what that religion wants you to believe. If that is the case, it isn't the hypocrites or the bullies or anyone else you'll be answering to, but instead answering to the god who made those commands.
And, if that doesn't phase you in the least, then you aren't really a follower of the religion, hence a hypocrite.
A rather presumptive statement on your part. You know more than the other christians. I read that a lot in these forums. A little holier than thouish. A christian attitude that should stand you in good stead, I would think.
Why should I hide the fact that in this area of expertise I am rather smart? Why? I cannot help your obvious jealously. That is your problem. I have been educating Christian laymen on their religion for over a decade. So yeah, I am smarter than the average Christian. Got a problem with teachers? Better yet got a problem with educated people who would speak the truth verses lie about themselves? Apparently you do.
It would be incredibly unfair to the average poster if I was to misrepresent myself and play the role biblical fool....
Why would you assume I was jealous? I was simply pointing out this was typical Christian behavior. Your response serves to reinforce the point.
I didn't assume your jealous. I'm a stating that you are. A BIG difference.
Yes, I would agree with that. It is quite a big difference.Let me rephrase the question, then. What would lead you to believe that I am jealous? I see no honor in the mad attempt of the different philosophies within Christianity to claw their way to the top, digging their heels into the backs of those they want to convince themselves are on the bottom of the religious heap.
I do know why it is done, and it does not invoke a jealous response within me.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
The topic at hand was of your choosing. You stated that you believed I was jealous..I responded to point out why that statement was ludicrous.
If you are asking what that has to do with the OP, then;
As I previously stated, the text is what it is. People can believe what they want. It is nothing but belief. You are no more right than the next person. None of you can prove the man even existed. Much less prove he was more than a man.
There is no proof that Christianity has any truth at the core of it. It has been my observation that the Christians who accept this fact intellectually burrow into the history, to try and prove to themselves and the world that they are no fool. Many times overstating their level of education on the topic. But they want the world to believe they have faith through their education.
Others, who also have a burning need to believe that overrides their doubt, take a different route and burrow into the text. They claim faith through what they want to project as a superior understanding of the word of god himself.
After these christians have convinced themselves that they have the tools to prove themselves knowledgeable enough to be above the 'foolish', 'weaker' or 'less educated' they go out of their way to shout it.
I see both styles of behavior as reason to believe that those who fall into both groups suffer a great deal of doubt but cannot fathom the alternative of accepting the obvious step toward non belief.
Their actions caused by these underlying doubts do no service to their fellow christians. Religion is faith, nothing more. By calling other christians weak, or fools or uneducated is a strike against christianity across the board, not simply the ones any have their guns pointed at in a particular moment.
I am a non believer and don't live by faith, but I can respect the religious who do have a personal and unwavering faith; and live that faith to the best of their abilities.
You know, I have never hidden the fact that I am scared not to believe in Jesus and God.
I am going to chalk some of this unnecessary banter as a result that you are new to hubpages and therefore haven't figured out how to read hubbers past forum posts.
I am aware of how pretentious my post sounded to you. But seriously if your going to approach these forums this way you could lose your priviledges. People don't like their threads hijacked over personal digs and snipes.
I could certainly go back and read past threads, to find out anyone's personal philosophy. Unfortunately, posts need to stand on their own.
Commenting on a topic is not a personal dig. Responding to an attempt to insult when the OP is offended by the fact that others don't agree with their views is not hijacking a thread. It is dialogue. If you weren't interested in opposing views a hub might have been a better venue.
I shall leave it at that.
Your first post was in no way commenting on the topic. It was a personal dig towards me. And, yes you should leave it that. It should have been left that way in the beginning, but apparently your jealously got the better of you. Your second to last post was the first time you actually made a comment that was the on topic. Your posts speak for themselves. You're hijacking a thread because you didn't approve of how I answered one of the posts when I was told I must. Pretending that you commented for another reason is just plain silliness.
Now... where were we? Oh you think that because people educate themselves in their religion, that it is purely done so, because we all must be insecure our faith.... Interesting idea, though I completely disagree with your personal assessment. What that has to do with whether or not the verbage Son of God's a metaphor or not, is beyond me.
My first post on this forum was a response to the OP.
The second was an observation. You responded with an attempt at attack.
I asked why you would assume, clarifying to you why I had made the statement. You reiterated the attempt at attack.
I further clarified, you responded and I responded. Then you respond again with an attack.
If you continue to state that I am jealous, I feel somewhat obligated to defend myself from such a ludicrous assumption. This is not hijacking a thread. You are asking for response.
Excellent question to think about. First, I would have to ask exactly what do you mean when you say GOD's son. I think GOD's son and SON OF GOD have somewhat different meanings. I was always taught that Jesus was not created. He was always there. In my opinion, in order to be GOD's son, he would have to have been created by GOD. But, to be the SON OF GOD is just the role he plays or his place in the order of GOD. He always sits at the right hand of the FATHER, never at the headship.
In my young life, I was taught to believe that Jesus was literally the son of God. Nothing hidden behind the words, no secret meanings, and that literal God was Jesus's daddy. So for argument sake, I will take this assumptive position.
Now as an amateur Christian historian, and (biblical antiquity) Christian hobbyist on early Christian theory and philosophy, I have a much different opinion. An opinion formed off a decade of research. So much of what we Christians are taught today was heresy back in the day, and wasn't even debated until the 4th and 5th century AD.
For example- much of what the protestants are taught, were opinions of King Henry the VIII had, and NOT Christian laws, theory or doctrine at all. But the average Christian doesn't know this, anymore than the average Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Christian followers know the family tree of Gamaliel. One would think that all Catholic followers would want to know who the religious teacher of Saul the Taurus/Apostle Paul was. It might help them to understand his writings better, and why he took the positions against women as he did, and why he wrote of speaking in tongues. So much of his writings are again taken literal now. But, "speaking in tongues" was a metaphor. But, look at the Assembly of God church and how large their following is. Their main differences from Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and other Christian sects- they "speak in tongues." A million or more Assembly of Godian's, are merely followers of this doctrine because of mere stupidity. Go figure..... The Coptic churches follow the preachings and philosophies of the Essence, which more closely matched the teachings of Gamaliel grandfather's Sanhedrin position. Who was Hillel, the one and very same teacher mentioned by the famed, Hebrew, historian Josephus.
But that brings back to my original question. Could it be that all Christians have been duped into believing a literal meaning, instead of a metaphorical view concerning Christ's sonmanship to God?
You are so full of yourself, how can you tell anyone about anything, you just want to try to impress everyone with the knowledge you think you have. What Paul wrote and what all the other Apostles wrote was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (God). Anytime you want to quote Scripture from the Bible and discuss it's meaning, then I am ready to discuss it. But your opinions and ideas you can keep them to yourself. You don't know anything about God, because your pride is busting out at the seams. I actually believe you think you know more than God anyways.
The whole of Christianity hinges on this one single foundation.
You either believe/accept that Jesus is God in the flesh, or you don't.
The entire NT was written to show that He INDEED was who He claimed to be.
The rest is academic.
This is where freedom of chice comes in.
Believe what you like.
The bigger question this raise, (if there could be a bigger one) is, "is the Bible text reliable and accurate?" if your answer is NO, then you get one answer, if it's yes, you get another.
I agree with the importance of the question of the authenticity of Scripture as being God inspired--much hinges on one's answer to that!
Does it, why? Like I mentioned in the post before this, limiting this conversation to NT texts only isn't possible. This is a very important statement. All points of interest should be considered here. Not just one's definition or answer to whether or not NT's text are reliable....
There are many things lost and/or made up when translations were made.
Cyrus was said to have been A Messiah when he liberated the Hebrew people from Babylonian rule.
Most all Christians interpret Jesus to be the rock which the statue in Nebeuchadnezzars dream
That statue represented the first four kingdoms of the earth.
Persia with Cyrus as their king was the second Beast in Daniels visions. A beast in prophesy does not have to be an evil thing.
Back to the topic. Messiah? there were a number of messiahs.
Jesus was prophesied to be "THE Messiah" who would liberate the Hebrews from the fourth Beast (4th Kingdom)
And Jesus said that he had come to Fulfill all of the prophesy written about him; which he did.
But everyone misunderstood how these prophesy were going to be fulfilled.
And we are still misunderstanding them.
Is Jesus the son of God? I think so, but probably not in the way that most people think.
You know, you bring up another great point that I often think people sometimes overlook. The fact that in the OT, there are several people considered to be of the "Messiah" status. So what does that mean? Was Christ only to be a representative of this elite group, or was he the real deal? This would definitely support the metaphorical positioning.
Sorry I haven't been able to spend much time here lately and NEVER intentionally neglect posts directed my way.
You ask ...Was Christ only to be a representative of this elite group, or was he the real deal?
I have never read anything in the OT that would indicate that Jesus was the Messiah for any other than that Hebrew Nation.
And it is written that Jesus said to one woman, "I have come but for the lost sheep of Israel"
This is not to say that different groups have not received their version of a Messiah.
And this is not saying that this same Jesus didn't at a different time come for all of mankind.
I am just speaking of what these particular verses are saying.
I know I didn't explain this adequately... but I tried.
You said that many claimed to be the messiah and you're right. We have been warned of this that many will claim to be the messiah- Jesus.
It just makes me think of the genealogy of Jesus. I mean that because the genealogy of Jesus is recorded we should have no problems discerning the real from fake. Plus there are so many fulfilled prophecies of our coming messiah that were fulfilled and some yet to be fulfilled.
With how much the world is against Jesus Christ of Nazareth- Son of David and King of the Jews, this should be our first clue of the truth of Jesus.
I was thinking a little differently, but, you bring up a good point. Yes, many of the preordained prophecies have come true. I agree with that, and yes that should be a clue that maybe Jesus is really who he taught he was. Because there isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that Jesus truly thought he was the son of God.
Why can't the bible text be both, accurate and philosophical? There are other books than those found in the Christian NT. I have a hard time ignoring the teachings of those other biblical text. I don't think that Christ and his teachings should just be limited to the NT first of all. He was a Jew you know, and was greatly influenced by the Essences. Well the Messiah concept was a Jewish concept, and the Essence were instrumental in giving Christ that title.
But the NT doesn't tell you this......, so is it reliable? Well, in some cases it is, and in other cases it's not. So that alleviates that argument. I think limiting the discussion to only the NT texts, isn't fruitful.
I didn't limit it to the NT!
It's just that in it is where you find Christ "revealed"
He is also all through the OT, but "concealed".
I never dispute His Jewishness!
Take the Bible for what it is! Don't make it be something it's not. Is all.
It takes care to distinguish between literal, allegorical, philosophical, poetic, etc. writings. No one description of the text can adequately/accurately describe the WHOLE!
Well it appeared to me that you were limiting it to the NT texts only. I even went back and re-read it and still appears that way. I cannot help it that is how it reads. I'm not the person who wrote it, you did.
You're the one making a point, I cannot help it if the point was differently from how you wanted it to read. Try a different angle. It's no big deal.
You did write this;
"The entire NT was written to show that He INDEED was who He claimed to be.", didn't you? Yeah you did, so chill out. No need for so many explanation points. Gee'z.
Jesus was not influenced by anything. Jesus knew what he was the whole time. He knew his journey, his goal, his purpose.
He knew everything. He did not have to travel to experience the essene religion, he already knew it. He didn't have to go to asia to learn from anyone there, God had already taught him. When christ said "he and the father are one" he wasn't talking about that moment, he always was one with the father and knew what the father knew.
God did not write this book so we could over look it and take what text we want from other books. Everything we need is in the bible. Its Gods word - so treat it that way. Outsourcing is only a form of deception, distraction and confusion.
I completely disagree with this school of thought. Why the baptism? Why bother fasting in the desert?
the baptism was to fulfill all things, Jesus being under the law did not sin and so had no sin to repent of but fulfilled the pattern by submitting to this baptism. The righteousness here is the righteousness of the law.
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it BECOMES US TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Then he suffered him.
THIS IS THE REASON JESUS WAS BAPTIZED
Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
AND GOD APPROVED
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased. (NOTE the word son)
He went to the desert to be tempted of the devil
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
This parallels moses time on mount sinai. The bible says that he did not go explicitely TO fast, but when he had fasted 40 days.. only the true son of God could fast 40 days. And also since this is a strongs #3522 it means abstain from food - which would happen in a desert - and also fast. I have no reason to believe that fast is actually the word but rather abstained from food because of course food could have easily materialized.
Questions like these are the type of question that spawns a new religion. Like Islam for example. Mohammed didnt believe Jesus was the son of god and hey presto, a new religion is born and more fighting ensues....
This question is brilliant, and at the root of my problem with Christianity. The 'Christ Concept' has troubled me for years, though I consider my life a Christian one. It is very difficult to come to terms with this, and I would absolutely LOVE to hear from others with the same issue.
I was raised Episcopalian and the Apostle's Creed requires the promise that 'I believe in Jesus, the Son of God...' (or something like that) which makes me wince when I say it, because I am simply not convinced. Yes, I do go to services occassionally, but have never been comfortable in reciting the creed.
Thanks for such a wonderful question!
I Believe that he is literally the son of god. My reasoning behind this is when Christ was in the Garden of Gethsemane, taking upon himself the sins of the world. He prayed
"38Then saith he unto them, My soul is aexceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and aprayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I dwill, but as thou wilt.
42He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy awill be done.
44And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words."
If he were not the son of god I would not understand this sacred moment in scripture. Christ is pleading to his father, not himself. He is pleading for his father to lift the unbearable burden he is carrying.
"For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son." This would not be such a great act of love if he was giving himself as apposed to a son that he cared so much for.
I agree with mikaylab93, but it is a very good topic and who knows that could be true it could've been taken out of context it has been around for a very long time.
Yes it is a metaphor often used in Torah or the OT to describe that the Creator-God loves someone.
At the end of the third chapter of Luke, Adam is also said to be the son of God. Since we are all literally descended from Adam, we, then, are descended from the Creator.
Depends on how you interpret the Bible in general. If you believe that an all knowing all encompassing God created the world in six days and then wiped out all humans except for Noah's family because he was disappointed in His creation, but then facillitated our evolution all over again anyway, then I guess Jesus is the son of a rather bipolar God. But Jesus never said he was the son of god, he said all humans are of God.
However, if you compare the OT to the interpretations of the Sumerian texts, applying two identities to Yahweh- one creator, one slanderer, referring to the beings identified as 'gods' in the Sumerian texts instead as 'lords', 'overseers',
'governors' and finding the less clear paralells in all of the pagan mythologies, it is admittedly hard to get away from the theory that we were genetically enigeered by an intelligent extraterestrial race who needed resources and therefore slaves. In Genesis, Yahweh refers to himself as 'us'. Strange? If you make a hypothesis that Yahweh/Anunnaki is a plural being, the projections of divine intervention in the OT ranging from survival guidance to the horrifically violent creates an interpretation that better explains the actions of an otherwise 'he beats me 'cuz he loves me' kind of singular god.
As for the son of god concept, there are two ways to approach this even if you are totally at the extreme of favoring the alien slave master race theory to the traditional one.
1. Jesus was the son of an Anunnaki lord.
If this is the case we're pretty screwed. Even a rebel faction of a 'master race' would probably be less than receptive to our actual needs as an evolving species.
2. Jesus was an enlightened being projected into our dimension by a higher conciousness to rescue (er, excuse me SAVE!) us from our enslavement. That of course would explain why he was so viciously persecuted and why the course of his suffering was so rigidly documented and revered. I mean, read the Gospels, his early life is very poorly documented, but the account of his official and unofficial punishments are rigidly recorded.
All in all however, if our true nature really is nonphysical than it really doesnt matter what scenario is unfolding, since the conflict would truly be spiritual in nature.
Oh well, I hope I havent bored you all to tears, but I've taken a big interest in these rising theories and I really wanted to share them.
Adam was the first created man. God formed him from the dust of the earth. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. God took upon Himself the body of a man and walked among men as men walk. The gospel of John explains it very clearly.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
God is His Word and God's Word is God. The Word of God was born of God, or begotten.
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
You must believe that He is the Son of God.
There are quite old Abrahamic traditions that believe Jesus was saying everyone is a child of God, not necessarily that he literally was. After all much of the later mythologizing of his birth and family does seem to be post hoc and perhaps not reliable.
Yeah, I just discovered that out for myself in a book I'm reading. They bring up some really interesting points, especially from the "Essence" influence on Jesus Christ, which creates a completely different perspective for the literal meaning of the Messiah on that viewpoint. Which leaves me to wonder for myself, was Jesus really the son of God, or did he just "will" himself to be such through his devotion, dedication and commitment? After some of additional studying on this subject, I'm incline to say yes. So I'm just curious, why do others believe that Jesus was the actual son of God. Is it because they were natively taught to believe the bible word for word, therefore not taught the history behind the words?
In my opinion, They are taught what the bible means and what it says according to their particular doctrine. Even in the bible Jesus says we are all "children of God", he never made the claim to actually be the literal son of God.
God seemed to think jesus was
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
I don't think you have to believe anything in particular. You should be able to read the text and make up your own mind what you believe. I would think as long as you believed he was sharing a message from God and you wanted to follow his ways you would call yourself a Christian. No matter who you thought he was.
I've heard there are Christian atheists, so I would think they didn't believe he was God Incarnate.
I believe there is a difference between one believing in a "religion" (a set of beliefs, traditions, attitudes, etc. created by humans to reach God) and one believing in God. My understanding is that God is interested in relationship with people, not the religions they create. Look how much strife and damage has been done "in the name of God" but really through the differences in beliefs from one religion to the next. This is a great question, but a big one! I don't think I could post all of the data I have in a comment section but I'll try to hit some key points.
To understand the language and historical context of the ancient texts if VERY important. English just does not give us a great sense of what many things actually mean in the Bible. I would recommend using the Strong's Concordance or something similar to look up words in the Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek. You can also use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer that is online at scripture4all.org. It has the original Hebrew and Greek with the English words under it.
Next, one should try to understand the context of the culture. The Bible is a collection of many different types of Literature and written to many different people. It is important to know if what you are reading was written as a historical record, or if it is literature/poetry, or a letter to a specific group, addressing specific issues, like Paul's epistles (letters).
Next, it is also important to look at the WHOLE. Here is an example I like. Let's say you are standing in front of a huge mural and you are standing so close to it that what you see in front of you is a single blade of grass. Then let's say you made a doctrine, theology, or even a religion, out of that single blade of grass. Out of context of the whole, it is incomplete. We need to be able to stand back and take in the whole mural and see how it all connects. This is where reading the entire text (in this case, the Bible) becomes very important if one really wants to get a good understanding of its message and principles.
There are several different factors that lead me to believe that Jesus is the literal son of God. John 14 gives some great reasons: "You believe in God; believe also in me… 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him….Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
Here, Jesus identifies himself as both the son of God by calling God His Father and He also identifies Himself as being one with God because if you see Jesus you have also seen the Father. He also says that you can believe this, if for no other reason, than by the evidence of the works that He had done, which were miracles, signs, and wonders that amazed all who saw them.
A main reason why Jesus referred to Himself as a "Son of Man' is because He emptied Himself of His divinity and took on human form (Philippians 2) and He was also pointing to how He was the fulfillment of who Daniel saw in Daniel 7. At the end of the gospels in the Bible (Matthew 26:63-64, Mark 14:61-62, Luke 22:70-71) Jesus is on trial and is asked if He is the son of God and He answers that He is. In John 20: 30-31 it says that these things are written so that you may know Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing you would have life in His name. This is a reason that Jesus is referred to by many as the "God-Man." Jesus was already the Son of God, but then He took on human form through the Virgin Birth as you can read about in Luke 1. We are already Sons of Man, but through belief in Jesus, we are transformed into being Children of God (1 John 3). So this is where humanity fit into this. Again, John 14 shows us that Jesus opened up a path for us to be reconciled to God through Him. So, it's like we were adopted into God's family as sons and daughters--becoming like a brother and as sister to Jesus. We are also sons and daughters and God can also be in us. In short, the Son of God became the Son of Man so that the Sons of Men could become the Sons of God.
I've just shared some data that I hope is compelling. But it was not through the persuasion of words that I have been convinced of who Jesus is. For me, it has been through a personal relationship with Jesus (not the images of God that I found through various religions) in which His love and power has been tangibly demonstrated in my life that I have come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I cannot deny my own experiences in which I once suffered from various ailments and through Jesus have been healed and made whole. When I had a concept of God through Religion, I was depressed, anxious, and suicidal. But when I found Jesus, I became joyful, at peace, and loved life. When I had Religion I had guilt, fear, and shame. But when I found Jesus, I knew I was truly forgiven and I became bold and courageous. When I had Religion, I had no sense of direction or purpose, but when I found Jesus I understood my true identity and what I was put on this earth to do. I've prayed for others who have been suffering in various ways and have seen Jesus rescue them from darkness. No matter the statistics or evidence, it is in these experiences that I find satisfactory answers to who Jesus really is.
Seek-n Find, Very compelling. I don't know how anyone can honesty say that religion and a relationship with God is the same. I have really enjoyed reading what you have written, and I have recently started a thread concerning this topic prior to noticing your reply on this particular thread.
Yeah you know his response was really good. But he left, and hasn't come back. Darn. I would love to read more of his thoughts. But I'm with you, very interesting post.
I think most of the posts in this thread have been very thought provoking. You know- I'm not sure where I stand on this issue today. I'm beginning to wonder if Christ was chosen, but, he had to first go through a transformation before becoming the full embodied son of God. Because as several posters have listed..., technically we are all sons and daughters of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born that way
it is our predestination after being saved to become:
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
"You believe in God; believe also in me… 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him….Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
If you find some verses to follow then there are other verses of different meaning. So, which verses are to be followed? Before coming Jesus on this earth so many humans were gone. If "No one comes to the Father except through me." then what about those humans who had died before Jesus came? So, there are so many errors in the bible. Bible's some verses are just misleading. Jesus is God's only son- this is the greatest misleading doctrine. Jesus was only a prophet of god as there were so many prophet had died before Jesus came. No previous prophet foretold it that the God's son would come to salvage the mankind.
two answers to "comes to the father except through me".
The OT people were under a different dispensation. They were not under Christ as the NT people are.
Why is God having a 1,000 yr millenium reign on earth and what will go on during that time?
You know, I have always wrestled with the idea of the holy Trinity. And, if Jesus "son of God" was just a metaphor... this would make more sense to me.
Early Christian teacher, Tertullian is known as the "Father of Latin (Christian) Tradition" because of his work on the Trinity. He argued that the Trinity's relationship to one another was separate. "three Persons (being represented by the trinity),(but in) one Substance" That 1) "God the Father", was God in representation of the patriarch role of the faith, thus encompassed Mosaic law and doctrine. 2) "God the Son", was a human form of God, who God then chose to transcend into and together with. This side of God represented the "God the women". Mose sat next to God representing the male role, and Jesus the woman's role of God's love. (Again two separate entities.)
Upon Christ's resurrection as the (actual)"son of God", Christ's teachings addressed the women's (the venus/X factor) role: love, compassion, health, mysticism, joy, maintenance of the family, and of the house and home, The spiritual welfare of God's people followed under this particular side of God.
And 3) the Holy Spirit, was the transition form taken by God when traveling through time, heavenly realms, and into hearts, soul and minds of human beings. It is the light source of God's power, and in this form God is whatever he wants to be.
This is another example of Christians not knowing the who and what's behind a message or reason.... Tertullian's trinitarian formula was earmarked as heretical in the first century, but, now it is the dogma of the Roman (latin) Catholic Church. A dogma I might add that causes confusion because it does not correspond with the whole ideology of the son being the "biological byproduct" of God.
In the early days of Christianity there were many different belief systems.
I am an atheist, but the one thing that the two anti-theistic people who commented on here miss is that very rarely does religious dogma come directly from the source material but instead from the institution of the church. The holy trinity is not a concept from scripture. Nowhere does this idea come directly from scripture but it was a theological concept that the Catholic church came up with to resolve contridictory beleifs about the divinity of Jesus. It was a political decision not a spirtual one.
Rapture belief is another example of something that isn't anywhere in the bible. Thousands of people believe it but they are not getting this dogma from the bible.
In fact, most of the destructive things that come from religion are not from scripture itself but from the political apparatus of the church.
The idea of Jesus being God or the son of God was highly contentious among early Christians. Many sects did in fact believe that this was a metaphor. When Jesus says that "I am the way and the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the father except through me," he could have met this stastement philosophical.
He could have been saying that it is through the example he set, chariety, love and compassion that you come to God. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus condemn nonbelievers but a lot of anti-theists talk like this is a central part of Christian dogma when it simply is not. That is not what the New Testement teaches with the exception of "carnal" readings of Revelation which was a book that was almost not included in the bible for being "too hateful."
Almost all the really ethically problematic stuff in the bible is in the old testament. In early Christian history there was a group of Gnostics that beleived that the God in the old testement was an "evil God." When Jesus came he was saving humanity from the "evil God." There has never been one dogma in the entire history of humanity to dictate Christianity. There has never been for any single religion that I know of. If one is to say a Christian who doesn't follow Dogma is a hipocrite then which dogma are they talking about?
It is stuff like these claims that fuel the fire of Christians who believe that they are religiously persecuted by athiests or that atheism is a religion or other such stupid claims. The fact is, that many athiests do act like atheism is a religion when they fail to even understand the history of religion and the foundation of philosophical and theological claims. Their ideological agenda that religion is inherently harmful motivates them beyond the reasoning of facts.
The simple fact is that reason and science are not suficent to give the human experience meaning in itself. Meaning comes from our passions and our "leaps of faith." Do I think religion is the answer? No, I did not make that choice but that is what it is a choice. I found other things to put my faith in than religion but my values are no less based on subjective drives and desires then any religious persons are.
I am so glad that you token the time to write such an informative comment. I was completely impressed when you interjected the role of biblical politics. So many people forget to include this highly votile demographic into a biblical debate. Very important aspect to consider here. It is probably the main reason the metaphor was used in the first place.
Metaphors, are like paintings, there's no right way to view them. Often yes, the author has some intended meaning, but what is meaningful to you, is more important, and ultimately the "answer." I tend to look at the Holy Spirit, as the mind's conscious attitude toward reality. This makes sense of Jesus' claim that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is silly if taken literally, but if blasphemy is a negative attitude toward what is present to you, then of course it is unforgivable, because you've put yourself in hell, and not heaven. Greeting life with anger, fear, judgement, and so on, is "hell" is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, while Heaven is something like a divine understanding and appreciation of being, of life. Religion, at it's best, expands our consciousness, our understanding of it, and empowers us to chose our state of mind instead of being driven by animal reflex. It's a thought.
The thing is there is no clear single understanding of how the gospel was/is intended. So there is plenty of room for differences of opinion that are not hypocritical.
I have written a hub on this very subject that originated as a question posed to me. The title is, "Is Jesus the Son of God?"
Come and see!
I understand it to be a metaphor and in a spiritual context it can't really be anything other than a metaphor. When you apply spiritual teachings to your own life journey you can see how Jesus and Buddha and spiritual masters are all representative of son's of a God - the God, or Divine essence, or the union of all that is. As Jesus' intent was to show us the way, the teaching is to step into the same shoes as he did, walk the talk, do it. Except I'm sure you don't have to get nailed to a cross for it. Even that is symbolic.
The major tragedy of modern Christian teachings is to have its followers believe that god is something outside of themselves, something separate. This in itself will prevent followers from reaching a satisfactory outcome. This, I believe, is the warning to people not to worship false gods. Anything you worship outside of you is an exvolution of the core of your own spirit. The untainted, unfallen essence of you is the God within. This is an experience, this is something to reveal in self. It is not and never will be revealed through belief in scriptures.
You know their is a spiritual group/knock-off religion known as the Babi's (I think that's their name) that practice this belief. Some of the people they believe to be Messiah's are; Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Samuel, Jesus, and Mohammad. I'll have to look into that further, but, I'm pretty sure that's the list. Very interesting idea.
This response is as close to my understanding of any that i ahve seen here. I get the sense that the communication is that everyone is the child of God, that Jesus did not consider himself a deity, and neither should anyone who would count themselves among the children of God. The paternity metaphor is the paramount misunderstood metaphor of the New Testament, in my opinion. Another metaphor, the shepherd metaphor, occupies my thoughts a bit recently. The thought is, that while we understand it, the connection to everyday life has slipped. Without that connection, people have begun to take it literally as well.
John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
These scriptures don't prove anything. The poster asked if Jesus said.... He didn't ask if John did or God did. Gee'z. These kinda posts are annoying. Find a supporting scripture. Least make your efforts count for something. Posting scriptures just to post something is part of the problem as to why so many non believers run and hide from us. It is also pointless and rude. Did you not read his question?
I trust what john says
i trust whats in the bible
jesus said the father loves the son... whos the father? oh God.. and whos the son... must be jesus.. hmmm yep i think i read his post correct, did you read my response correctly?
you said here:
Well I am glad you came back. You listed quite a few intriguing scriptures.... to heavenbound... so is your adverse reaction to me just personal or do you change your mind so very often or do you like women more than men? whasssup
You it's not.... thanks for doing that.
You know I personally feel that Christ's Jewish background played a very key role in this metaphor. I use to not feel this way. I always approached it from the viewpoint that he was Christ no matter faith his family practiced. It is only because of the new found understanding I have gain because of reading different books that I know now that the Messiah thing was strictly a Jewish thing.
I know.... that's been my whole point.
Well, I am done with the stupidity. It is beneath me in the first place and it is stupid in the second case. The bantering is uncalled for, I completely agree.
Again that's been my whole point.
You can trust that I have moved on.
Sorry but I do have to leave here and take care of some of those survival issues that only pretain to me.
Gotta go and do something.
The son of god is a metaphor of a metaphor, the whole belief system is based on how pre-science people tried to rationalise and explain unknown things. To continue with such bronze-age beliefs is ridiculous now that we know the answers to many of the questions.
How is it a metaphor to a metaphor?
Could you elaborate on that a little more?
son of god = the son of a metaphor = a metaphor of a metaphor
weak joke, but it amused me in the middle of a long slow and hot afternoon
When Paul re-wrote the story to suit his own political ends he seemed to use all the rhetorical devices and was adept at metaphore use, maybe analysis of the writing itself would be more productive than posters here putting up long lists of blather in place of intelligence.
You know for some of us folks religion, God & the bible is more than just blather. That wasn't a very nice thing to post. I mean did you purposefully aim to slam us? I don't think a person is stupid just because they like to write about and discuss
religion. If you think we are so stupid then why hang out with us retards?
I don't think any of the people who choose to blind themselves to truth and hide in religion are 'retards' (which is not a very nice thing to say, as has been established in countless threads about mental incapacity). I do think that half the people are simple souls who are unable to differentiate between a metaphor and the real thing, the other half just 'prey' on them if you will pardon the pun.
I 'hang out' in these threads to balance those who like to encourage this deception. It is important for any view to have its counter-point, if you are genuinely trying to discuss invisible super-beings who 'speak' ONLY through a single story from several thousand years ago. If you are only babbling to each other then this is neither discussion or argument it is simply babbling.
I was clearly calling belief in a ridiculous bronze age system stupid - you appear to be trying to say that I was calling you stupid personally, a typical nasty trick of the religious forums usually accompanied by hitting the report button, and this a typically nasty behaviour within religious society generally. If you cannot prove or justify or reason your beliefs then personal attack is the only option I suppose.
Mixing reincarnation with christianity is counter to everything in the christian book and history and is pure mumbo jumbo. It only shows a deep misunderstanding of the role of reincarnation in religions that espouse a path to personal enlightenment and the achievement of nirvana - rather than a conveyor belt to heaven.
That some posters in religious threads are unintelligent posters of half-understood quotations has already been well established. That some posters in religious threads make wild and unsubstantiated links between disparate religious beliefs that have no common source or philosophy is pure ignorance and new-age superstition, that some of these same people then claim to be teachers or expert in some way is pure deceipt.
You had and have nothing to report. And no answer to the issues I raise either.
If you were serious about 'letting it be' you would have done so. Your increasingly shrill and absurd attack is simply a response to realising that you are unable to answer simple questions about the subject you claim to 'teach'.
Screaming 'victim' while making personal attacks is normal.
And swearing in a religious thread is not very nice, however you disguise the foul language, there are nice simple people taking part and it is not 'nice' to expose them to bad behaviour.
Why don't you just confine yourself to answering the questions and countering the points - if you have any actual basis for the wild statements and conclusions you jump to about the religion you think you follow.
You know I post questions that I think other people would enjoy. It DOES NOT mean I believe them. It does not mean that it is my belief.
YOU need to quit ASSUMING that YOU know me.... That just because I ask a question, doesn't mean I think that way or believe that way. You have made a big mistake by making this assumption, and repeatedly I read. Haven't you ever been to debate class? Didn't you have some sort of public speaking/business/debate class in high school? Do you think that "teacher" believed everything they asked? Seriously, do you think that for someone to conjure up an idea, that they have to believe in that idea? Nevermind, too philosophical I guess for me, huh?
I like being merited for engaging conversations. I like that award under my name. I like having a 90+ hubscore. I write and pose questions of interest to challenge people and to have conversations with people, and learn. You know I get bored sometimes. I like to read what people have to say. I'm curious as to what others believe. If I don't ask questions, then how would I get to know? I wouldn't. So hence my style of questions.
That's better, now we can see the real character behind the words.
Now that you have got that vile mess of words out of your system perhaps you would like to take up the discussion ?
Any answers or backing for your mis-placing reincarnation into the christianity myth ?
If "belief in a ridiculous bronze age system" is stupid, then who does the believing? You are saying that the act is stupid, but the person is left untouched by your assessment? Somehow I miss your logic (illogic?).
Mixing reincarnation with Christianity is counter to "everything" in the Christian book? Wow! Could it be that you haven't looked closely enough?
It becomes highly suspect when someone starts using the "e" word, "everything." And your claim that "some posters" are "unintelligent" and that this is "well established," are questionable as arguments in your current statement. By association, this applies to all who claim reincarnation is in the Bible? Pretty thin logic... again. Otherwise, you should leave out such unrelated statements. They do not support your case, but only distract by attempting to elicit an emotional response; and as such, are effectively ad hominem in nature.
The fact that Jews were asking John the Baptist if he was someone else returned, shows clearly that reincarnation was on their minds. Jesus telling his disciples that Elijah had returned and that they understood that their master referred to John the Baptist, this is a clear indication of reincarnation. The question by the disciple about the man born blind is also a clear indication of reincarnation, for how can a man born blind deserve to have that condition by something he had done before, unless he had lived in an earlier life? The Kabbalists (Jewish mystics) also believe in reincarnation, and they've been around for a very long time. In fact, their mark is on the book of Genesis; their "Tree of Life" is embedded in two chapters of that book.
So many, like you recommend1, rush to "believe," but don't take the time to be humble about their search for answers (Fundamentalists and skeptics, alike).
The passage in Hebrews that Christians use to "ward off" reincarnation is entirely neutral on the subject. Of course a body lives only once, but the spirit (soul) is eternal. See Genesis 1:26, that man was created in the image of God -- a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation (baby gods). This is neither the Homo sapiens shell nor the ever-present ego.
Could it be that most Christians over the last 2000 years have gotten it all wrong? This is certainly a possibility. With so many interpretations, only one can be right on any one topic, and the possibility remains that none are right.
Salvation, nirvana, and enlightenment are all about giving up the ego, what the Buddhists referred to as the root of all suffering. And humility is the antidote to ego. That part of the "self" which insists on being "right" makes it very difficult to maintain any measure of humility. And God wants His children back so much that He gave us numerous ways to get back to our state of grace. This includes Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Following Christ does not happen merely by saying it. Following Christ is an attitude and a state of mind, but too many Christians follow ego, instead. Did Gautama Siddhartha Buddha attain this state of mind? If so, then he also "followed Christ." Following Christ does not mean being in a fan club for the Homo sapiens male who walked to his own crucifixion.
Only one of the Catholic popes ever walked on water, at least as far as what is documented. Only one of the disciples "got it" enough to circumvent the laws of physical reality there on the Sea of Galilee. Only one achieved that paramita state in the discontinuous realm of creation, where we were all born, outside of space and time.
Mumbo jumbo? Miracles are only possible from this point-of-view, and a few have reached it, if only for a few moments, like Peter when he walked on water, or one of your commenters during a miracle on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1977.
Is 9:6-For unto us a child (Jesus)is born, unto us a son (Jesus) is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (Jesus).
Is 11:1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
Isaiah 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.
In Matt 11:28 Jesus said "Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest".
John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Matthew 8:29- Even the demons call Him the Son of God-
"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"- Jesus is the son of God and at the appointed time will cast all demons into hell because Jesus has the keys to hell- because He is the Son of God.
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
In Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
Matt 27:40,Matt 4:6,& Matt 4:3- Satan trying to attack Jesus identity in a mocking taunting way said to Jesus "If you are the Son of God"
Matt 27:43- Jesus on the cross being mocked for being the Son of God-
He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"
"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."
Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
He then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man.
Jesus is God and has God's power to save us therefore making him both. Because of Jesus we can become the sons of God- not the Son Of God- we are the fruits of Jesus being sown to save and redeem us. Now we can bear the name of Jesus and spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world because we are sons of God because of the Son of God = Jesus. This is how we were adopted and grafted into the plan of God to save all that are lost. We don't just get an inheritance a portion of the kingdom and promises of God but we are joint heirs with Christ receive the fullness/ all God's promises because of Jesus death and resurrection.
In Jesus name we have authority and rights to be the sons of God. Totally different than Son Of God.
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
John 13:31-Therefore, when he was gone out , Jesus said , Now is the Son of man glorified , and God is glorified in him.
Rom 5:10-For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled , we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 8:3-For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
1 Cor 1:9-
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
2 Cor 1:19-For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
Heb 10:29-Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye , shall he be thought worthy , who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified , an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
1 John 3:8-He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested , that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 4:9-In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1 John 4:15- Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Rev 5:5-Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals."
Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
1 Tim 2:5-For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
No. I was simply trying to engage that person to the discussion.
But to no use.
I'm sorry for not responding.
Did you mean it doesn't drive home the point? I think it does because Acts 4 will take us back to John 3:16 That God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will be saved.
It is very important for us to recognize that Jesus is the Son of God sent to save us.
I gave many examples of Jesus being the Son of God.
"Son of God" just a metaphor? I think not.
But behind the ego and Homo sapiens shell, each of us are children of God, too.
The Nazarene teacher answered his enemies, when they accused him of blasphemy and were about to stone him, "ye are gods."
Genesis 1:26 talks about this. It says quite provocatively that we were created in the image of God. I don't think they were talking about Homo sapiens or even ego. Homo sapiens is brought up later, Genesis 2:7.
Much of the confusion about God, the Bible, and religion can be eliminated by realizing that God is not interested in the vehicles we operate or their short (century-long) lifespans. He loves his immortal, though sleeping, children. That's why our brother Yehoshua came to Earth, and why Elijah-John came back. Compassion for their siblings.
Sometimes I come off sounding difrently than what I actually believe.
I do believe Jesus was the messiah spoken of in the OT.
But I am conused about many things in religion and how scripture is understood/taught.
Jesus is said to be the only begotten son o God ... and yet ... Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree; the Lord hath said unto me, "Thou art my son, this day I hath begotten the"
Is this King David saying this?
Was King David an earlier incarnation of Jesus or should we rethink our understanding of being a begotten son of God?
And what about Melchizedek; cause wasn’t Jesus said to be in the form of Melchizedek or something like that?
I think we need to do a lot of rethinking.
I don't have an opinion concerning reincarnation of King David and Jesus,
I do wonder what David was talking about when he said God said that "you are my son and this day I have begotten you"
I find that interesting, what words was this translated from and what does this mean? How does this relate with Jesus being the only begotten son.
Should that verse have said "FIRST" begotten son ?
I think Mis--translations have caused a multitude of problems understanding what the origional message might really have been.
king david is talking in the third person tense.
melchizedek is the best incarnate representation in the bible that there is. Even better than the fourth person in the furnace of nebuchadnezzar. And Jesus is a priest under that order not the levite order. Melchizedek was 400 years BEFORE the levite tribe even existed.
Only begotten is correct
also in the jewish frame of reference, begotten means to have been born of a woman, the human way. birthed.
I think there is more to reincarnation/Christianity than just mumbo jumbo. Maybe an immortal life is a reincarnated one. Maybe life after death is accomplished this way. If so, we would need God even more than we do now I would think. So I do see the two going hand n hand rather nicely.
Good points, IntimatEvolution, but I have a question.
Would the so-called immortality of Christ's "everlasting life" be thwarted by the amnesia accompanied so often by bodily death? Wouldn't "everlasting life" instead be the continuity of consciousness achieved by awakening the immortal part of us now sleeping inside?
If we view the world through ego, then we are following the master of this world. If we view the world through the child of God, within, then we are following the Father in heaven, within.
Humility, faith (fearlessness, confidence), and responsibility are the keys to this and are the antidote to ego.
"continuity of consciousness"
It is so funny that you mentioned this, because just the other day I watched a program on the discovery channel that addressed this issue. It's called "Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman." Right now they are trying to figure out if that is what happens to us when we die. Part of their focus group is people who have had near death experiences. It was really interesting.
Well I've got to scoot on to work.
I'll be back though. You've given me so things to think about for sure. You know, I don't know what the real answer is. But I do think we are getting close to figuring it out.
if you want to figure this out in a christian manner you will have to figure it out biblically not through some christian scientology scheme, but from the bible.
Modern technology has given us virtual reality of sorts, and this technology has only begun.
What IF this life that we live is little different than a virtual reality when seen from an other worldly prospective.
Just sayin ... What If?
This is a good point - but you do understand that virtual reality is directly saying that it is a metaphor ?
The definition in Wiki - "is a term that applies to computer-simulated environments that can simulate physical presence in places in the real world, as well as in imaginary worlds."
Your 'what if' is directly saying what if it is a metaphor . . . . and of course IT IS.
In a virtual reality can anything not be anything that we choose it to be?
This is exactly the point, it can - and it is and existance inside a metaphor, as a metphor yourself - this does not make it real or true in any way, it just makes it an extension of what you know and believe that you live within - which is how religions work.
Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly ... OR ... Is reality the fact that I am a butterfly which is NOW dreaming it is a man.
Is truth that which a majority says that it is.
Is that which has not yet been preceived ... "Not" at least until some one say that it "IS"
Mr Webster hasn't written a definition for it yet. so IT Isn't? ... Yet.
The dream argument has been done I think,if you doubt which is the reality then jump off a very tall building in this reality, if you wake up and you are a butterfly come along and tell me - I never kill any living thing if I can help it and encourage non-aggressive insects to hang around.
On the question of "can virtual reality be anything," I remind everyone the answer is know; so of the rules of the other world bleed over into the virtual world. For example: a computer games have to take into account the human mind and body; how they function in "reality;' the same thing would hold true if this world was a virtual world, there would be limits in it set by the rules of the "real" world, provided the other world has "rules."
Nowhere do I bully you, 'assume I know you' or 'told you what you believe' - just challenged your statements.
Interesting response. But no discussion or debate or interest in the answer to the question you posed ?
This is not possible - everything could 'also' be a metaphor but it is must also be real first. Religionists try to confuse the issue by skipping the real bit and trying to make a metaphor from a metaphor.
perhaps your correct, but since everything is a concept and concepts are kind of like metaphors, I don't think I'm too far off. "Real" I don't know what that is; except a metaphor for something else, "real" isn't what my brain perceives and creates its something else. But again, what do I know...nothing.
So many words just obscure the point, all your 'examples' are questions found in the text about reincarnation and are refuted in the text. So NO reincarnation is NOT any part of christian doctrine - except in the confusion that new-age religion tries to weave out of as many old religions as it can.
So, recommend1, I'm assuming that you're replying to my post of 5 minutes earlier than this, but in a different location. I apologize if I'm assuming incorrectly. The topic and the timing seem to indicate a relationship.
By "your" examples, are you referring to mine? The placement of your comment, so far from mine, is typical of your logic... misplaced!
So, "all" of my examples are "questions?" Clearly you have the wrong definition of "question." Some refer to questions asked, yes; but some of my examples pertain to no question. So, clearly your "all" is an incorrect generalization, just as with your use of "everything."
Would my discussing this with you be casting pearls before swine? Perhaps it would, but my hope is that others may gain insight from this. If you really wanted to discuss this civilly, you wouldn't use such misplaced generalizations, and poor logic. You wouldn't be so insulting when logical arguments are best stated without such emotionalism.
Do you provide proof to your assertions against my examples? I don't see any. Only the bald claim in caps that stand on your empty argument. While it is true that modern Christian doctrine does not typically espouse a belief in reincarnation, your assertion that reincarnation in Christianity is a confusion foisted by new-age religion, is groundless, perhaps not in its entirety, but this seems largely so, partially because you have not backed up your arguments with facts. I have provided examples which refute this "new-age" claim of yours.
I have given you examples of how reincarnation was a subject of concern 2000 years ago. You even admit that reincarnation was a subject of discussion back then in the Levant, but claim without support that it was refuted in the text. For each example, provide the so-called refutation. Or even one example, if you are so lazy.
The Jewish questions and statements of 2000+ years ago are not new-age. Get off of that wagon. The Kabbalah is not new-age. Some Kabbalists participated in the writing and compiling of the Old Testament. That may be newer than pre-history, but not what is typically called "New Age."
Ego obscures. And your "so many words," without mentioning those words is a good example of such obscuration. Bravo! And unless you provide something substantial to back up your empty protestations, I will move on to "greener pastures."
Score one more for logic, and zero for generalizations.
Blabbering on is not argument - for a start my post is directly under yours, but blindness does seem to be a trait.
I have no idea what or why you would waste so many words connecting the Kaballah with christianity ! the point is simple - THE BIBLE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF REINCARNATION - it is not part of christianity.
It is your modus operandi to wrap your ignorance of your chosen subject in personal attacks and insults. If you manage a reply, please drop the insults and verbal diahorrea and stick to the point.
Look whose calling who ignorant...
Another personal attack instead of answering the awkward question of why a so-called teacher of fellow christians would be teaching that reincarnation is part of christianity.
You are clearly not in any way a christian teacher, you do not know your subject and you express clear your belief in new-age mumbo jumbo, and now you get your information from the Discovery Channel
Diarrohea and deceipt seems an apt summary of the ignorance that appears in these threads.
You are entitled to your opinion of course. Yesterday, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you personally used attacks on my character as your sole rebuttal, but now your behavior is what I intentionally thought it to be. I think you enjoy insulting people. I find that tactic used in debates like this inhibiting. I am not interested in inhibiting other people opinions, not even yours. I will say this though I would appreciate it if you keep your personal slams towards my personal self at bay and debate me with clear examples from here on out.
There is no need for you to continue on slamming my personal representation and character merits, just because I made a point to point out your obvious lack of spelling academics after you had the nerve to call a man ignorant for his positioning on a religious belief. There is difference between something that is purly academic vs. something being philosophic. Especially seeing how spelling is an academic study.... well, I found the irony of you calling other hubbers ignorant quite funny.
what parts of the old testament did the kabbalists write and compile?
You know I was once in the play "Proof," now it wasn't a payed gig, just a small town theater production. Like the other actors I memorized lines and tried to get to understand my character. In one of our rehearsals, in the last scene, the actress playing the female lead, was delivering her line wrong; because she didn't understand the subtext of the line. I can say, "I hate you," but mean "I love you." Well, not only did that play have the plain meaning of line, it also had an incredible amount of subtext, and quite brilliantly a metaphorical conversation too, as well, as posing questions in the themes of the play and answering those question out of order. Again, it was brilliant, and I understand why the author one the highest award you can get for play writing. But I had to explain it all, not only to the other actor, but to the incompetent director. My point being, is the author of Proof, didn't invent metaphor and subtext, it's been around forever; but just like 95% of the audience that saw our version Proof, people don't see the message and meaning in. Religion has these layers of meaning that speak to the nature of the human condition. Einstein believed that the heart of reality is simply mathematical relationships, that the universe is just an equation, and that view goes back to one of the ancient Greeks, but it can be found metaphorically in religions too. You saw you don't believe in reincarnation, but you are a reincarnation, your atoms came from other people and plants and dirt and stars, and will go on being recycled. Your thoughts and ideas are borrowed and shared by others, and will be again. Science, in the "many worlds theory," argues the there is an infinite number of you and an infinite number of versions of you; physics argues (largely believes) the past there and the future is there, so you can't die "seize to be," and don't even get me started on ll the theories of consciousness floating around. You know the Hindus got the age of the universe right long before science did and their region gave them the idea for the number zero. Religion and science are two faces of the same search of understanding and bound only by the limits of one's imagination.
I absolutely agree with the points you raise except this one. I never claimed to believe or not believe, I was just pointing out to our supposed christian teacher that reincarnation is not part of christianity and never was, that Lonestar went through amazing verbosity to confirm that in the bible various people asked the question about reincarnation - and were told resoundingly NO.
As you point out - people seem to have a harder time understanding, reality, metaphor and myth than they used to before TV told them everything they think they know.
It's difficult to say for certain, but I rather suspect you incorrect; because the Biblical metaphors are so dense, I get so few of them; and Christianity sprung out of a wealth of traditions, but I kinda of think the "resurrection" in the Spring, call Easter, is a metaphor for reincarnation which is a "metaphor" the continueous (god I can't spell) process of life and the universe; even the scientific principle that nothing can be destroyed just transformed, including the information in a system.
Hey there. Sorry I haven't a chance to thank for your kind words...
Your welcome; I was impressed. So few people approach these forms with a truly open mind (as you seem to), that is willing to listen and discuss, without judgmental anger. I mean, we're all pretty entrenched into our own views; that decades of coming to those points, so it's very doubtful any of us are going to climb to another "peak" and take reality in from that point of view, but it's at least refreshing to see someone listening to the others on their mountains, instead of lobbing stones at them; but in full disclosure sometimes my words feel like stones to others.
Oh yes I totally agree that they can be. You know, there is soooo much stuff we can learn from one another, and being closed minded only keeps a person down. I don't want to be out kept at the bottom of the pile and in the dark. Thank you. You made my day!
Back to work I go.
2 Corinthians 3:18
and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 5:4
While we live in this earthly tent, we groan with a feeling of oppression; it is not that we want to get rid of our earthly body, but that we want to have the heavenly one put on over us, so that what is mortal will be transformed by life.
for once i agree with you but only because you referenced the bible as your source. Reincarnation is not biblical.
"Would my discussing this with you be casting pearls before swine?"
What a massively arrogant thing to say!
"Massively arrogant?" Would earnest know something about ego and arrogance? From experience? How clever.
And why would asking a question be arrogant?
What is the difference between confidence and arrogance? I see someone who argues poorly, uses misplaced generalizations, and does not back up their arguments with facts, but uses accusations of stupidity and false associations to elicit emotional responses. Hmmm-m-m. What's your definition of the metaphor "swine?" I think my definition fits the occasion. That's not arrogance, but merely observation.
But a massively big ego might not recognize such a thing, when defending a poor position in logic. I have a massively big ego, from time to time. I too know what one looks like. Putting wisdom before ego is indeed casting "pearls before swine." Ego is a created conceptual construct -- a matrix of dichotomies -- useful in trapping an immortal creator in the physical realm, and then making that immortal depend on Homo sapiens bodies for continuity of consciousness. If you're stuck in that, you are wallowing in physicality just as pigs wallow in the mud and feces.
The "you" that is ego, earnest, is not a "son of God," but the sleeping immortal found only through humility is a "son of God." It's not easy to gain such humility and to awaken the sleeping immortal. I've only done it a few dozen times in this current lifetime, and only for brief minutes or seconds. Some lifetimes, none at all. I'm still learning, earnest. But have you even started? You think such things are only myth. Wallow away.
You should get out more.
Before you try to use an hominem attacks you should understand a little about who you are attacking and why you get so pumped by points you have no answer for.
Your comment calls all who don't believe your myth pigs.
and what does God call people who don't believe our 'myth'
oh wait.. he tosses em in the lake of fire.
He's probably knitting while the 100foot by 60foot plasma screen displays all your posts scrolling by and then as you melt into nothingness and are a wee puddle on the floor.. he calls... NEXT!
Callin someone a pig now, is not so arrogant after all is it?
You keep quoting the words of psychotic myth creators then apply their beliefs to others.
Even then, the words have to be "interpreted" which winds up in the believers arguing over the meaning amongst themselves as they do here.
The problem with "context" arguments is that no two religionists can agree on those interpretations as is evident here daily.
The only god involved here is in your head.
The bible is a small part of the bronze aged myths, most of it missing or modified, and being debunked more every day in documentaries and by new discoveries in medicine and science which you ignore because your book tells you it is immoral to question the rubbish written by the sexist psychotic goat herders who wrote this junk.
As you have clearly demonstrated "There are none so blind as those who will not see"
that's a foregone conclusion. All my days are better than good. I'm not reliant on how my day goes, nor do i assess my good days by looking back on them. I know in the morning when i wake up, this day, like all the others is gonna be good. Doesn't even matter if my vehicle breaks down. Its all being taken care of, but thanks anyway.
Right because only an all knowing, unconditionally loving God would take such savage delight in throwing his rejectors into a lake of fire. Such a concept is diabolical, not divine.
You have picked my brain and written it all down most eloquently.
I don't understand how anyone can not, at least acknowledge the possibility that mistranslation and false interpretations has covered up this obvious concept.
The Roman Empire did all that it could do to exterminate this New religion called Christianity.
In 326AD Constantine formulated a new plan to do away with "That" religion.
If you can't beat them, Join them, Infiltrate and destroy from within.
By the year 380 AD, The Roman government and this Universal Church became ONE entity.
A new world order So-to-speak.
If possible, even the very elect will be fooled.
All other religious faiths were considered blasphemy, and dealt with severely.
Any TRUTHS that was not contained within the doctrine of THE Government owned and operated church was buried.
Truth was defined and maintained by the church for a thousand years.
This was all foretold by John almost 240 years earlier.
What amazes me is that all of this is hidden in plain sight right there in the bible, Thinly veiled by poor translation and misinterpretation. And everyone knows this. But We stand firmly upon our own "Interpretation"
Has anyone tried to UNINTERPRET the scriptures? Don't tell me that it can't be done!
What is Christianity? I don't know!
We must ask the church what its interpretation of Christianity IS!
Hey lorlie6 I wanted to thank you your comment earlier. I think a lot of us hold the same positioning as you find yourself. I believe the more questions we ask about our beliefs only help us to become better and smarter people.
We're all children of God. Jesus as Son of God is nothing special.
But here is where it gets interesting: http://hubpages.com/hub/Immaculate-Conception
Jesus becomes Son of God when you have an Immaculate Conception.
Second, Jesus identifies himself more often as the Son of Man. Most Christians have not discussed "Son of Man" as it relates to 1 Enoch in the Book of Parables.
Was Martin Luther any less a Christian or a hypocrite when he stopped believing in some of the tenets of his contemporary Catholic Church?
I personally don't believe that Mary was a virgin. Maybe it's because I work in the health field, but I think that Mary and Joseph were married. Now that doesn't mean I don't feel that God didn't somehow divinely intervene to make the pregnancy happen.... I see miracles being born everyday! And yes, I totally love my job.
The use of the term virgin defined a virtuous pure person. It didn't necessarily refer to whether a woman had or had not conceived a child.
For the post I was commenting on about Immaculate Conception, I was referring to Mary as a virgin virgin. I understand that the "Virgin Mary" is a metaphor for purity, yes I agree Jewels wholeheartedly. But I was referring to the "workings of God", vs. the veneration of her. Since the poster seemed to me to be commenting on the inner workings of our Lord, and not who Mary was as a person- I approach her in that way. I think there is two parts to Mary.
God's Mary, and Mary the Person.
Maybe I went about it too simplistically. I can see I did.
Jewish men do not have sex with their wives TO BE, prior to the wedding night. Impossible it doesn't happen. All jewish men around this time in history wanted, indeed it was expected, to have a virgin wife. Yes, virgin.. never before had sex, still got the hymen. The man would look for the blood stains to ensure he had gotten a virgin or all heck would break loose.
Joseph was perturbed at the situation but God intervened and said its okay joseph that child is of the holy spirit of me. I really don't even think God used maries egg. I think God planted a zygote in mary and she was just the incubator.
I agree. Biologically, Mary was not a virgin virgin. She was likely impregnated by another man who for some reason could not remain in her life. Then Joseph married an already impregnated Mary. If Mary really was the surviving daughter of the king before Herod the Great, it makes sense that she had Jesus in humble surroundings because Herod did slaughter many of the family members of his predecessor. If the biological father was Herod's son Antipater who married a Hasmonean against his father's wishes, he was executed around the time of Jesus' conception.
so glad you found the forums.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her (mary), The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
No other man..
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
The surroundings didn't matter when herod slaughtered.. he just slaughtered.
Steefen you are sadly mistaken Jesus being the Son of God is special! By believing (is a choice) that God sent him to die on the cross for our sins-to redeem us from the fallen state of sin so we can have eternal life with God IS the most important decision of our lives. This is what we will be judged by have we accepted and believed on His son the one God sent to save us. By this we are justified or condemned.
Just because we don't understand everything doesn't make us God or give us a right to say God has not made a way for us to be saved. Pride comes before a fall. If we will humble ourselves before God first than we will be able to understand what the mind can't wrap it's mind around.
Jesus is the Son of Man for the reason being His life was sowed as a sacrifice/seed to redeem us all- And the only reason He is the Son of man is that because He is too the Son of God. Without Jesus we aren't the sons or daughters of God. We can't even approach God without having Jesus death and resurrection to cover our sins that separate us from God.
1 Cor 1:18-For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14- The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
1 John 4:15- If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
1 John 5:5- Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
Proverbs 3: 1- My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
4So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
It's most unfortunate the word Ego itself is sometimes misplaced. There is such a thing as the Transformed Ego which is the aim of many spiritual initiates.
Ego = Self. This is a literal translation of the Upanishads of Hindu philosophy. It refers to individuality and in a human being the Ego is the eternal flame.
There is then the fallen ego (lower case e) which is unfortunately the normal every day neurotic human being. Yes - everyone on this forum is neurotic and is using the lower form of them selves! Understood to be the result of The Fall.
Wisdom is gained by transforming parts of the ego. It has naught to do with abc knowledge, but a state of knowing. Completely different. Knowledge by the way is actually the result of direct experience, again it has nothing to do with abc knowledge.
Everyone is a son of God, even Paul said "Not me, but Christ in me." He too eluded to being the son of God. This state of knowing and feeling - ie experiencing Christ is within is akin to the transformed Ego, it's a state of being, an am-ness. These states are covered in the Kabbalah and identical to Ain Soph, and in the Indian tradition it's brahman.
Having a clear knowledge (ie experience) of these states you then come to understand that Jesus as the son of God is a metaphor. He experienced the same states.
It's a gross misconception to think that Jesus is the only son of God. Doing this erases your personal ability to attain the same level of consciousness.
"Everyone is a son of God, even Paul said "Not me, but Christ in me." He too eluded to being the son of God. This state of knowing and feeling - ie experiencing Christ is within is akin to the transformed Ego, it's a state of being, an am-ness. These states are covered in the Kabbalah and identical to Ain Soph, and in the Indian tradition it's brahman."
I thought the Kabbalah was a later piece of work. I'm not sure it was around in the 1st and 2nd century. Maybe I'm wrong, or not understanding your meaning by mentioning it. Because I thought it was a school of thought that formed together around the medieval period. I thought it was more of an Essene Ideology, that eventually found it's way outward. But I thought it truly was a link to the Essenes, who lived outside the realms of ordinary orthodox Judaism at that time period. They were very spiritual, and took to mysticism, whereas the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ balked at some of the ideology. They even went so far as to order some of the Essenes to be killed for their beliefs. You know the Essenes were closely linked to the Ebionites. Some believe that they were one and the same, except the Ebionites were the married versions. Seeing how the Essenes opposed marriage, well they didn't oppose it they just opposed sex. James, Seth, Jacob Jose, Judas were all Ebionites. I mean, this Ego= Self thing, that was total within the philosophy of these Jews. These ideas mind you weren't popular. They weren't the norm. Jewels I'm pretty sure I've got the history about this right. So if I'm wrong, I'd greatly appreciate you letting me know. Because, I would hate it if I've been teaching my SS kids something completely wrong. How embarrassing for me.
To be honest I am not as knowlegeable on such historic lineage as you. I believe the Cathars had a lineage to the Essenes. Even though the Cathars were post Jesus, their spiritual integrity was apparently similar to the Essenes.
Sanskrit texts are known to be the most ancient. There are similarities between states of consciousness as written in sanskrit to those in the Kabbalah. (Sanskrit is the most ancient language known. ) When actually practicing via meditation, this is where the similarities occur - in states of consciousness. In the Hindu tradition the similar state is called Atman which is Self or Higher Self The Ego or Self precedes the state of dissolving. This would equate to Jesus becoming Jesus/Christ , ie attaining Christ Consciousness..
It is understood that biblical texts were not just the 'word of God', but have also been taken from existing spiritual texts and practices preceding the life of Jesus.
I'd say they weren't popular because it takes discipline and lots of practice to achieve them.
Jewels, isn't Daath (Knowledge) the Son of God in Jewish Mysticism?
Knowledge is not sacrificed for salvation in Jewish mysticism, heavenbound5511.
Heavenbound5511, you quote Paul a lot--Paul who disrespected Jesus' legacy in the Jewish community.
My salvation is definitely not through Paul.
It is not through the narrator of the Gospel of John.
Jesus does not speak John 3:16, the narrator of the Gospel of John does.
Jesus knew the Father. Salvation can come from the red-letter words of Jesus.
The Our Father prayer is enough for salvation. I highly doubt those who've sincerely prayed the Our Father and lived it will not receive the grace of the Holy Spirit and be saved. One has a relationship with the Father when one prays the Our Father. God definitely does not have to make his son a victim of pagan Roman crucifixion for me. In fact, count me out of Heaven if the words spoken during Jesus' mission while he was alive are not enough.
The Beatitudes are enough for salvation.
No where in the Beatitudes does Jesus mention also believing in his death to pay for sin for the heavenly rewards of the Beatitudes.
All you have to do is be poor in spirit and you're saved: YOURS IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Not be poor in spirit and believe Jesus died for sins is required.
Be pure in heart and you're saved: YOU'LL SEE GOD.
Be a peacemaker and you're saved: YOU ARE A CHILD OF GOD.
Be persecuted for righteousness and you're saved: THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS FOR YOU.
No where in the Beatitudes does Jesus tie sin to salvation. He didn't say you are incapable of being saved without my crucifixion by Roman execution, a piercing in his side by a Roman spear.
Jesus as Savior was quite authorized to teach the way to salvation without requiring those after his death to add to his teachings.
Jesus does not speak John 3:16, the narrator of the Gospel of John does.
The narrator of the Gospel of john is John. What a good source. Someone who actually knew Jesus.
another person who disses Paul. Why would anyone do that?
(if you have a lengthy retort you can email me)
"God definitely does not have to make his son a victim of pagan Roman crucifixion for me"
Yah sure, Jesus went through all that just to have you sneak up the backway. The cross is nothing to ignore.
All you have to do is be poor in spirit and you're saved: YOURS IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Not be poor in spirit and believe Jesus died for sins is required.
Blessed are the poor in spirit.... G4434 a beggar asking alms. The poor in spirit is not an impoverished, penniless kind of poor, but rather the scene is that of a beggar asking people for money. A beggar asking people to change his life. Someone who is actively reaching out and trying to exert physical change in his life. Someone leaning on someone else for support. Its a picture of someone asking someone else to change their life.
This is not being saved... but it will get you there. This is a salvation scene (past tense) and future tense. So long as the christian deems themselves poor in spirit - actively trying to change their life, in this case, from godly to more godly - change will happen. IF a sinner is actively asking God to change their life, they will be introduced to salvation of which no one is saved without going through the salvation process, which is the sinners prayer - to coin a phrase.
Except, even as a non-Christian one can think of Jesus as the only son of God, because perhaps at some higher consciousness, there is the dissolution of self. "I and the father are one," so there is no other son of God, because there is no other...perhaps.
Jesus whether real or a metaphor, represented mankind. He showed the way to all humans who wanted to take this path to divinity. I and the father are one. Tumbletree and the father are one. Jewels and the father are one. If you look at the principles of emanation, we are all an emanation of the one seed. So we are all seeds from the one divine 'being.'
Yoga (not the exercise yoga), but the real yoga is about union. It's a way of life with the intention to reunite with ones divine self - God. One does not need to be categorized a Christian. Jesus does not have a monopoly on Christ Consciousness.
In case someone needs to know, Daath/Daat/Da'at is the Son of Chokmah and Binah in Jewish mysticism, not sacrificed for Salvation. Chokmah is a manifestation of the Father. Binah is a manifestation of the Mother. In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is not known as the Mother.
Thats funny. Oh yes Jesus does have the monopoly. Just as much monopoly as moses had in the Old testament, and a few others. That's actually a theme of the bible.. how to please the one true God.
If the crucifixion on the cross does speak volumes about Jesus' importance then what else does? And in another area, there is no race for divinity. God does not share his divinity. We are sons of God, children of God - not God (capital G) God may share his power, but we never ever ever become divinities or divine in any way. That is ego driven theology. When its all over and done with we can not accredit ourselves with any work or merit that was good enough to gain our entrance into what God has for us. It is by His grace alone that we obtain the prize at the end of the race and that will not be any part of his divinity. Outsourcing again huh
Tons of discipline. And we can't forget the other important aspect that they were communional and chose to live together in poverty.
Tons of discipline where? When a man marries a woman who is already pregnant to keep her respectable, the relationship did not start from romantic attraction. Second, when a woman is impregnated by another man who has been executed, she's not as romantically attracted to the man who married her to keep her respectable.
I highly recommend that you read the book Herodian Messiah. One thing you will see there is that Jesus was closer to a Therapeut than an Essene.
I am currently reading a book that states the opposite. But the book was written in 1892. But thanks for the tip! I love reading historical books, especially on biblical history. I feel in love with subject when I was in college many, many moons ago. I pride myself as an amateur historian. Its been a passionate hobby of mine for a long while now. I just love it! So thanks again.
So in little "aha" moment I had the other day, concerned the "crown of thorns." It is a metaphor for the mental and emotional anguish a person goes through who is supremely empathetic; the Buddha went through it too. There's a line in the Green Mile, John Coffee explains why he wants to die, he see how people are to one another, feels how cruel and ugly they are, and it's like "glass is his head," or I might say, "a crown of thorns."
I wrote a poem and named in Crown of Thorns, and it portrays the mire and anguish of our mental afflictions - darn thinking. It is definitely a metaphor for our thoughts and emotions.
I've always taken the account of the thorns literally, with the symbolism being formed afterwards. But I should tell you, I am a believer in certain relics. I believe that some of our most treasured relics provide information that collaborates with the crown of thorns being placed upon his head. Otherwise, I would probably think it was purely created for it's symbolism and metaphorical representation. But as it is, I'm a believer that that event actually took place, based off the findings of a certain relic that dates to the period. Now, was the Romans who placed it on Christ's head acting in a metaphorical manner, yes. But the key here is I believe the event took place.
I very much believe that Christ walked this earth, and that account of his life took place. However, I believe that he did not firmly become the "son of God" until his resurrection. At that moment of divine Grace is when he went from being an ordinary man, with a will of his own to the higher plain of Son of God.
It is a literary metaphor for what actually happens to our mental state when the mire of our thoughts descends into our bodies. This did not begin with Jesus, he was not the first person to experience mental anguish. It is clearly symbolism on several levels.
Lets say the Romans did place a crown of thorns on his head., which will sate the presence of relics. The question is why did they do that, what were they attempting to achieve?
Have you noticed the head gear of the ancient Egyptians who preceded the life of Jesus? Horus, ISIS, Nephthys for reference. The head dress is high and vertical - not unlike the bishops mitre. The symbology is the link between the lower mind and higher realms, higher states of consciousness. There is a direct correlation between "being closer to God", being connected and being seen by the Gods, or God if you like. To wear a head dress such as these people of stature shows the esteem they had, the exaltation. The head wear is only symbolic. People in power want to be Gods, want to feel closer to God. Not all of them are and often it's at the expense of other people - you may have noticed that!
The crown of thorns is symbolic of the severing of this connection. This happens by the lowering of consciousness. To ensure the Romans retained power and showed the masses that this man was not of God, did they place the Crown of Thorns on his head?
The resurrection therefore shows that through adversity, no matter how many crowns of thorns are placed on ones head, resurrection is possible.
Jesus probably did walk on this planet, but he became known as Christ because he became enlightened - like Buddah and attained the state known as Christ Consciousness. It is the aspiration of spiritual initiates to attain the state of consciousness where there is a reunion with the essence within which is understood as Christ Consciousness.
Crown of thorns actually happened. It was intended to mock his kingship.
Matthew 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
Mark 15:17 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,
John 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
John 19:5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
@Jewels, the line of reasoning for high crowns of Egypt to Jesus' low crown of thorns mocking his kingship doesn't work for me because Julius Caesar is known for his laurel wreath crown (a crown of no height).
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (at the mount of transfiguration)
Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
God called him Son before he ascended.
I really don't know how much literal truth there is in the New Testament, (there's almost none in the old testament, the effect of retelling stories for a thousand generations). So what you can discount immediately, of course, is the Virgin Birth (a old and often repeated metaphor) and all the miracles in the New Testament. If you believe in the New Testament miracles, the you've got to believe in the miracles in all the other religions. Then you're left with the "possibility" of a man's life, and perhaps a deeply profound man. The problem is no one wrote a thing about his life for at least 30 years after his death; actually that's not perhaps correct; nothing is preserved about his life in writing from a closer point to actual life of such a man. Then there were a wealth of different Christianities, with probably a wealth of writing (now lost or destroy), but a Pagan Caesar for his own purposes forced the largest sects of Christianity to condense their divergent views and texts into one book. Now all of this didn't happen in a vacuum; all the normal human affairs were happening around it and influencing this man's story. Even now people try to rewrite history to fit their beliefs. Roman's and others new well the use of propaganda, and how to influence human psychology. Can anyone really believe, Pontius Pilatus washed his hands of Jesus' death? If Jesus actually existed, it was Probably Pntius Pilatus who gladly had the radical put to death. This was the Roman Empire they killed people by the thousands, daily, and didn't blink; but you can't have a growing religion teaching that the Roman Empire killed their God, fortunately it's the Roman's realm, so they control what is taught. And teaching the Jews that their messiah has already come, and they have killed him, helps to kill the fire of rebellion in them, often lead by someone claiming to be their messiah.....So until we can travel back in time, it is going to be nearly impossible to sort fact from fiction in the New Testament. But that's fine, because I suspect that Jesus, like our founding fathers, didn't expect us to obsess on everything he may had said or did. He was speaking to the people and the circumstances of his time, not ours. It is not for us to look to the past to find Jesus, because there are many people like him living today. Who's listening to them?
"It was Rome's realm, so they controlled what was taught."
I agree with that statement.
There was a Jesus, a contemporary of the Biblical Jesus who knew Greek and was a historian. There's a good chance that our Jesus did write but there was no way his writings would survive with his name in the byline.
A sermon (Sermon on the Mount) requires the skill of a writer. Jesus is not made more of a genius/more holy by pretending he was an uneducated Jew who spoke so well without an education.
If I remember correctly, the Jesus that Josephus speaks of was a ruler of Tiberius. And I do remember, he became a general with the Idumeans who rebelled against Rome.
I'm working this into the second edition of my book. (Just got home from work, ate dinner, and I'm watching So You Think You Can Dance. I have so much work to do on my book because I'm doing a read through of the Jesus section. I'm re-writing parts of it which means edits to the Table of Contents and worse, edits to the manual index.
Be that as it may, think on the likelihood that Jesus wrote parts of the Gospel. It was not re-written until after 70 AD when Rome punctuated it's domination over Judea.
Tumbletree is at a critical point in the heart of the matter, we have a Romanized version of what really happened.
Paul's contribution to the New Testament is even more Romanized than the Gospels. There are too many similarities between Paul's philosophy and the philosophy of Seneca (who lived during the time of Josephus).
"You can't have a growing religion teaching that the Roman Empire killed their God, fortunately it's the Roman's realm, so they control what is taught. And teaching the Jews that their messiah has already come, and they have killed him, helps to kill the fire of rebellion in them, often lead by someone claiming to be their messiah."
Even with the resurrection, Jesus, Son of God, member of the Trinity, was killed by the Romans. Jesus didn't have another "three years" of ministry after his resurrection because he was killed by the Romans. He could have easily had three more years of preaching about his resurrection; but no, he ascends to heaven (goes into the light).
I'm not a Biblical scholar. I vaguely understand that the gospels are based upon a common earlier work, or something like that. If Jesus wrote, then his own story can't be true, because so son of a carpenter would be literate in his time. I don't know, so I don't worry about it. I'm not a scholar. I'm just take what inspiration and meaning from the story I can. Whether he existed or not, Jesus is a very real person to me; he is the person in many respects I aim to be like.
Do you think priests cannot be carpeters? Do you think smart people living on a kibbutz cannot be carpenters? Do you think a minister cannot be a carpenter? My childhood minister was a landscaper.
@IntimateEvolution I'll re-phrase as follows. In reference to women, Christianity is closer to the Therapeutae than the Essenes.
"The emphasis upon celibacy is a prominent parallel between the Therapeutae and early Christianity. ...two prominent features of the Therapeutae are found in the Nazarene movement: a) acceptance of women members and b) emphasis upon celibacy. The connection between early Christianity and the Therapeutae was not lost on Church historian Eusebius. In fact, Eusebius gushingly described the Therapeutae as proto-Christians."
Herodian Messiah: Case for Jesus as Grandson of Herod
by Joseph Raymond
I am back home now.
The "Therapeutaes?" From what I now know, they were a very small Jewish sect in Egypt, and Greek in origin. Particularly, Alexandria, right? It was the home of many, many, many different early Judaism/Christian, "cults," if you will. I have never read any historical accounts of them in book format. I haven't studied their ideology at all. And, twenty years ago I cannot remember learning about them in school. But that's not saying much. It was twenty years ago.
What I do know, has been from reading about the Essenes, and Googling other biblical information. Now, I thought they lived around a big lake somewhere in Northern Africa. And it was my understanding that their name has something to do with the art of "healing people," hence "Therapy" of their ailments through magic spells, and herbal meds. Aren't there still some practicing groups still in existence, in the desert of Egypt? I think there are. Shoot I could be wrong. Maybe I should go Google them to refresh my memory. I'll be back.
The bottomline is for me, I don't remember any connection to Christ, other than pure speculation. Maybe their ideology was similar to that of the Essenes and Ebionites. But the distance for that time period was too great for them to have had any impact on Christ, much less for his mother to have been married to one originally. I tend to think that might be some clever way to connect the two, but, I have never came across any information that makes me think that Mary was married before. Never. But like I stated earlier, let me go Google the word Therapeutae, and see if I can jog a memory or something. But I thought they were a Jewish sect that was strictly confined to North Africa. I'll be back. Because I just don't know that much about them....
The Therapeuts were healers of souls. Now, you mention that they used magic spells and herbal meds. I cannot say Jesus did not learn some of his healing skills from the Therapeuts or via them. If he, Mary, and Joseph were in Alexandria when they went to Egypt, it is possible that Joseph and Mary spent time with this sect and passed on some of their knowledge to Jesus. Second, in the "lost years of Jesus" it is reasonable for him to reconnect with Egypt (possibly Alexandria). I've come to believe Jesus came in contact with Heron of Alexandria. That's a person you want to google because he was an inventor who made a vase that had hydraulics which made the appearance of water turning into wine.
I don't get what you're saying about there being a time difference between the Therapeuts and Jesus. Remember Philo of Alexandria who wrote about contemporary Therapeuts was also a contemporary of Jesus.
This makes a lot of sense Steefen. There is so much "wondering" about the lost years of Jesus. I read a novel by theologen Eugene Whitworth Nine Faces of Christ, this was at the height of a phase of spiritual practices. It depicted how Jesus traveled extensively and experienced many different modalities of religion or spiritual paths. It bodes very well with anyone who undertakes spiritual practices, as Jesus did. He was a man afterall who was influenced by his surroundings like any other man, and influenced by other cultures and teachings.
From what I understand the Therapeuts and Essenes were similar.
Does it make any sense that Jesus, the initiator of a new dispensation by God his father, would experience many (false) different modalities of religion or spiritual paths?
Isn't that what got Israel in trouble i the first place?
Besides He already knew what everyone else was doing.
John 1:48 "Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee". Jesus was no where near that fig tree.
Jesus wasn't an ordinary man, Immanuel - God with us.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Jesus did not have to experiment and he lived a life without sin which is a most important aspect of His crucifixion.
You see, this is the trouble with outsourcing other texts than the bible. The reader does not know what parts to pick and leave out, unless they are well grounded in the word of God and that does not happen while reading other distracting books.
Yes, to me it makes a lot of sense that Jesus imbue teachings from what existed. It is well worth understanding what teachings preceded modern Christianity.
I doubt Jesus was experimenting as you put it, but learning.
Are you saying the Vedas are distracting?
You see the trouble with not understanding broader texts - outside the bible, is the narrow viewpoint. When you apply the texts to your spiritual practices they make a lot of sense. But I have to say, reading and regurgitating scriptures is not a spiritual practice as regards real experiential knowledge.
experimenting, learning, partaking, watching, whatever, it would all be a waste of time to the Son of God.
In all the love i can muster, outsourcing is a source of confusion. I know no other way to put it, but i am glad i warned people.
As to the vedras, distracting and a waste of time.
You know, I just don't know enough about them to speak rationally. I was really asking rather than speaking facts. I think they're healers who used herbs combined with spells... I think. Am I 100% proof positive on anything I wrote about them? No. I thought I had made that kinda clear, but apparently not- my bad! No time difference... I don't know if there was a time difference or not. I was speaking as in miles. Judea being far from North Africa. So I was speaking of time in distance and in miles. But then again.... they could have been strictly a Greek philosophy for all that I know. Sometimes my memory doesn't serve me correctly.
Please don't quote me on anything that I wrote. I'd hate to have told you all something wrong. Like I wrote I was just going off my memory. I could be thinking of an entirely different sect. I have been shooting off fireworks with y son. So I haven't had a chance to Google anything as of yet.
It's very likely that the modern church has proclaimed the use of "herbs and spells" by religious sects to dispel them. Very unfortunate that when ancient mysteries are not understood, they are discredited by any means. This is what the Roman church did to pagan practices at large.
IntimateEvolution, this site may give you an insite into the Therapeuts, half way down page. http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/fff/fff08.htm
Interestingly the time period is perfect as there is reference to writings about them in AD25 - that's the texts, not the sect.
Whats to wonder about 13 yrs... the first 2 he was poopin, then walking, then going to school, helpin dad around the house, barmitzvah and teaching in the temples - the word of God at age 13.
Dunno what all the hub bub is about. He was a kid living life as a kid growing up like kids do, albeit, a very serious kid.
Strangers do not marry women to keep them respectable whom they have not had sex with yet.
The angel of the lord told joseph in a dream not to put mary away. If joseph did not love mary why were they engaged before he found out she was with child?
Sorry your outsourced source doesn't line up with bible.
I think living in poverty showed the lack of need for material possessions. There is no real need to live in poverty if you are an initiate. But seriously, the less you have, the less clutter, the less external factors you have to tend to. Less is best!
The Essenes and Cathars did this certainly. There has to be perspective. There is a difference between living in poverty because you have been forced to, ie there is oppression and no means to feed, cloth and house oneself. And the kind where the richness comes from the simple gratitude of life, and the people you have around you and the wonder of nature. This may sound a tad on the custard side, but in reality, and even in todays world possessions don't make the man. Happiness and a sense of peace was found by a state of being, not by what you own.
I am actually out on a boat in the middle of the Lake of the Ozarks. I will be back at my computer sometime tomorrow. Cheers
I think the term Christian relates to Christ but somewhere in the Bible - I can not recall at the moment where - Christ tells his followers that they also can do miracles which brings me to the question of whether we are not all sons and daughters of God and that Christ came to earth to give us a new example to follow instead of some of the old testament practices. Remember that the Bible was written by men and I saw once a listing of all the inconsitencies in the Bible but that should not reflect upon our use of prayer to thank the God we believe in for the things we are thankful for. Does it really matter if Jesus was the son of God or if he was able to turn water into wine or any of the other stories told in the Bible by deciples who may well have tried to embellish stories which would make more people choose to follow their religion? Jesus said that he will be at the right hand of God so it shouldn't matter whether he is there as the son of God or as our brother or sister.
I believe that Son of God is not a metaphor. John 3:16 "For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son".The Son of God (Jesus)died and rose back to life by God, the Father. The Bible clearly states that one can only be saved by believing on that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sin. That is the only basis that one becomes a christian.
Somewhere in this thread somebody already addresses the scripture. I think they said it best when they said that Jesus didn't say those words. The narrator of the gospel did. So they are discredited.
Who wrote that do you remember? Was it tumbletree?
it was the disciple john who wrote john 3:16. The verse is indeed valid. Jesus doesn't have to say all the words. His disciples were not drunken lackies. The phrase comes by observation of the big picture by the disciple whom jesus loved and of course, inspiration by God himself.
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
It is jewish custom not to write your own name in the text. This occurs 4 times in the book of John
Son of God - with a capital S on son is reserved especially for Jesus, mentioned 45 times in the kjv NT, all times capitalized.
sons of God - are saved christian believers. All 6 references never have a capital S on son.
son of god - without the capital S - you will not find in the kjv (in lukes geneology "the son" is added and not in the original.)
son of man is referenced 85 times but not exclusively to Jesus, but majorly.
The King James bible knows when and how to use capitals.
Jesus is connected directly to every instance, the 'Son of God' is mentioned. There is no metaphor used here and clearly not a name, it is a title and literally applied.
A Son in the Hebrew/Jewish society have the rights to all the father has. They inherit all things. They act in the fathers absence. They carry on the name.
All these things Jesus also had.
Plus, Jesus was born of a flesh and blood human woman. Which furthers his candidacy to be called a son, God as Jesus' father makes Jesus The Son.
Sons have fathers, illegitimate children do not. And a disobedient son who showed strife all his childhood would be put out of the house at barmitzvah age, 13.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
John 3:36 He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.
John 5:23 That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which hath sent him.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The book of John is a full of references about this. There are approx 200 references to Jesus as the Son of God.
Being a christian is being saved. The salvation experience is so very important. In order to be a christian, one must be saved.
I do not think believing in the trinity is as important as believing that Christ is Gods Son. Son and father, in Israels' history have a close relationship, and since it is in scripture, and plainly so, this belief in Christ being the Son of God is paramount to being a christian. It is part of the whole picture of who and what christ is.
How do you view the Bible? Is it just another book you read? Or do you take it as written by men who were inspired by God?
This was a great thread until it was hijacked by scriptures.
Vedas. Please learn to spell it brotheryochanan.
IntimateEvolution, it was a good topic and one where open discussion was welcomed.
i will most likely never ever ever spell that word again.
when discussing bible you really and please must learn to appreciate bible scripture.
You have missed the point entirely of this topic brotheryochanan. Do you know the meaning of the word metaphor? And why in Gods name did this topic have to be about bible discussion? If you really read the entire thread you could see people had actually stepped outside of it. Next time perhaps go a bit more lateral on your assumptions and your opinions to a thread that was not about regurgitation of scriptures.
The Vedas are more ancient and as sacred as the original writings of the original biblical texts. At least respect it.
"And why in Gods name did this topic have to be about bible discussion"?
Forum topic question quoted below:
Has these titles, which are often used to describe CHRISTS relationship with GOD, been taken out of context? Or do you honestly believe that JESUS CHRIST IS GODS SON? I wonder, can a
person still be a CHRISTIAN, and yet believe that CHRIST is not the SON OF GOD? What are your thoughts on the ISSUE?
the ISSUE i would interpret as being about JESUS CHRIST BEING THE SON OF GOD. Which i infer, is BIBLE BASED.
Usually when i see CHRIST and CHRISTIAN this many times in the forum question i have this strange tendancy of thinking "oh a BIBLE based question".
The worship of the sUn and moon and stars is much older too, but i do not have to respect that. I pick and choose what i respect. Age, in manuscripts - not people - means nothing to me. This is not a race about what came first or when.
I think you missed several points and your midol as well
I'm sure I didn't miss the point. Look up the word METAPHOR.
What means nothing to you as far as ancient texts is irrelevant. The discussions is not about YOU. What you think therefore is opinion and nothing more. Respect on the other hand is what you gain by doing the work of Jesus. Might try that some time.
And No - Christ and Christ consciousness does not have to be a bible based question. If you read other texts you might gain wider knowledge on this.
Gawd i dislike argumentative women.
If you scroll through the discussion listings you will find christian discussion after christian discussion.
To separate a christian from the bible just does not happen. And as i have said before other texts don't get the job done, they just add confusion of which your comments clearly define.
have a nice day
Gawd I dislike ignorance.
You can certainly separate a Christian from the modern bible. And If it was getting the job done the world would be a better place. Wouldn't it? Don't answer that, your actions has done that for you.
And I'm not confused by reading more than one spiritual text. It actually broadens the mind. I find that by reading other texts, the bible makes more sense. And it makes much more sense when you apply it to your self and not to an external deity. Have a go, you may like it.
You have a nice day also.
person still be a CHRISTIAN, and yet believe that CHRIST is not the SON OF GOD? What are your thoughts on the ISSUE?
If you take the position that the Christ is simply an enlightened being sent to us by a higher consciousness then we are all of god.
And we are all capable of evolving towards this higher conciousness. Only his disciples and accusers said he was the son of god. Jesus himself says ALL are of God.
John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb of god. Well, what is a lamb in Biblical symbology? A sacrifice to God.
So, I do believe one can be a Christian and believe that Christ is not the son of god. I also believe one can accept Christ into one's life without being a Christian.
"ALL are of God" Of is not a word describing ownership. We are all OF, as in from or by, OF is a word with the meaning; appointed.
The pharisees were OF God but they did not have a good reputation by God which means the OF is not a guaranteed position - a guaranteed position would indicate ownership. Unsaved people are OF God, since God created mankind but they certainly are not in an ownership position. We are indeed all from God and by God but certainly people are not all positionally IN God.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are OF God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is OF God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not OF God: and this is that spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:4 Ye are OF God, little children, and have overcome them: BECAUSE greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
Why would we assume that God would play favorites. Just because a book says so. As writers we both know of the skill and manipulation that can be put to language. And I don't know what the Bible quotes are supposed to accomplish so I hope you posted those for your own benefit. I'm much more interested in what you personally think.
In Christianity the bible is a foundation. Christianity is built around the bible and the personal study of it. It is accepted without even partial denial that the words convey what God wants to say. God created a universe, God can preserve and protect His Word and as one who diligently reads the book, daily - I concur 150% with the bibles discourse.
Scripture is good for correcting false ideas.
I could care less if anyone knows my thoughts or ideas - although sometimes i do convey them - but i do care that people become aware of what the bible says.
If you don't care to hear about scripture, there are other forums to give your ears a good tickle.
You do understand that the religious forum encompasses all religions? This is the religion and philosophy section. Metaphors are good when discussing philosophy. Now the Christian section is somewhere else. I think they regurgitate scriptures to their hearts content. I'm not sure if they have a pulpit but I'm sure they won't mind if you take your own.
Scripture reading does not make a Christian. It makes one learn how to quote scriptures, which you do very well.
So there wasn't enough christian associated words in the title... hmmm. So you should bring something that isn't christian into the chrstian oriented forum and the christians should leave their books and scriptures at home.
I think you need a long long rest.
"The b*stard from the bush rode across the Nullarbor in one day and night, no more, he did it so that he could beat the rain. When he got over there all the flamin ground was bare, so he turned around and did the trip again.
Is this from the same story?
For God so loved the world he gave his ONLY begotten SON that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life....
If he wasn't God's true son, there would be no pint in this religion & Just an "average man" hanging on the cross would be the biggest waste of time ever.
VoltaireZ: No I don't, not in those times. It was a completely different reality, and literacy was a thing only of the more elite in society; a child born to a poor family wouldn't have been taught to read and write.
Well, you're absolutely wrong.
"The following description of the habits of Essene monks comes to us from Philo of Alexandria.
'They are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity. No one, in short, attends to any employment whatever connected with war, or even to any of those occupations even in peace which are easily perverted to wicked purposes.
The different members of this body have different employments in which they occupy themselves. Some of them ... are devoted to the practice of agriculture, others again are shepherds, or cowherds, and experienced in the management of every kind of animal, some are cunning in what relates to swarms of bees, and others again are artisans and handicraftsmen.'
The tradition of monastic life with a rural, Spartan life that includes manual labor in a basic trade lives on to this day in the Christian faith."
So, Jesus and his father were literate men who studied, wrote and had manual labor skills.
I might wrong, but again, I don't know if the man existed, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates to me the life you're talking about for Jesus; there's no need for Jesus to be literate, it's not a sign of intelligence; there's no evidence that he was; certainly nothing of his 'own' writings, and he certainly didn't write his own "death" story.
I think you are really seeing what you want to see, which we all do and that is fine (I bend my understanding of Jesus and Socrates to meet my beliefs and find meaning in), but if you want to say your beliefs are objectively valid, then you have to have them reviewed and published by scholars; when I can read "your beliefs" in an encyclopedia then I'll think ya, Jesus existed, he was literate, he wrote non-fiction, and so on.
But really, it doesn't matter to me. My Jesus is my Jesus, he doesn't need to be anyone else's; and my Jesus isn't any real Jesus there might have actually been.
I have finished reading the inspiration behind this question; Jesus Christ, the Great Initiate. I am absolutely convinced that the Son of God was a metaphor drawing from many different parallels.
Yes, Son of God is a metaphor used for the truthful persons who loved the Creator God and whom He loved also; it is frequently used in the Old Testament; Jesus was on such person.
Son of God
Contextually, which God. Contextually, the Hebrew God. The Jewish God. There certainly is a leap when one takes the God of a small country and makes that God a global / universal / monotheistic God. Rome was greater than Judea. Jupiter was greater than the God of the Jews. The Invincible Sun (Constantine's God) was greater than Jesus' God.
It's ethnocentric and absolutely wrong to read God of the Jews as a global God. Judea was never a super power, was never an empire. The Jewish God never appointed an emperor of a widespread civilization.
If we go the other way, how does Judea compare to Tibet? No, Judaism, is not a non-material religion. It is not a spiritual religion. There are too many earthly laws for it to be a major spiritual religion. What priests were ascetics/monks?
John the Baptist and Jesus, together, are a presentation of important spiritual and social lessons for building character, society, and for building one's soul. It is so important to be honest with oneself. It is so important to reflect on self-incrimination: a person has done something wrong and that person must admit it and have enough morals, remorse, and altruism to 1) know right from wrong, 2) feel ashamed and sorrowful for doing wrong, and 3) realize the act/s had negative consequences for other living beings.
Jesus' message was to Love the Father. Yes, I'm going to say the Jewish Father. For me, Jesus is a patriarchal spiritual teacher; and, that leaves me wanting.
If Jesus would have said see the Global God as Father and Mother (Father for the fatherless, Mother for the motherless), he would have been more classic for today. Unfortunately, he's dated to a patriarchal age. (Yes, power is still in the hands of men; but, there has been some change, at least in modern Western countries.
Son of God is really a metaphor used in the OT so frequetnly.
I give here some from the OT by searching "son/s of god":
The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.
Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.
Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them.
And it came to pass, when on a certain day the sons of God came, and stood before the Lord, and Satan came among them, and stood in his sight,
When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
For who in the clouds can be compared to the Lord: or who among the sons of God shall be like to God?
Osee (Hosea) 1:10
And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shall not be numbered. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said to them: You are not my people: it shall be said to them: Ye are the sons of the living God.
He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
He answered, and said: Behold I see four men loose, and walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt in them, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=sons+of … rb&t=1
Jesus was one such son of god in terms of the usage of the Bible.
by hinazille5 months ago
...when Jesus clearly said 'My Father is Greater than I' in John 14:28?Nothing can be greater than God, so by Jesus' own words, we can deduce that Jesus did not profess to be God, because he professes that there is a...
by Kiss andTales5 years ago
There are so many religions in the world and yet there are those who believe in nothing but themselfs, and yet those that believe in God live as though they dont believe , just by the way they live, and the things they...
by sandra rinck7 years ago
Just wondering because from my understanding Jehovah's witnesses don't believe that Jesus Christ is God. According to the abundance of strong Christ idolaters, Jesus Christ is God. So because Atheist don't...
by thirdmillenium6 years ago
This is not a repetition nor scam.My previous argument on the topic could not be augmented in time and so I am putting it up as a separate topic. Mr. Dave Mathews has misunderstood that I was hiding behind some esoteric...
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that...
by Andrew02088 years ago
RELIGION VS THE BIBLE.This is a striking subject as it has being somehow controversal in all ages regarding it's relationship with the Bible. Anyway, I know Religion could be man made in nature as it is widely claimed...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.