@ WHO IS THAT JESUS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ? @
OB...@aol.com
Jesus Christ.
If I used this subject on how Jesus was understood I would come to a
conclusion that Jesus was not understood by most christians and it is
now at the endtime that we can learn who is Jesus Christ according to
the Bible. It is a good sign we must be in the endtime era as
understanding of who is Jesus Christ seems to be the best and we can
see horrible mistakes in churches in how they understood Jesus Christ.
Harold Camping whom I view as the best preacher of the Bible on radio
got the wrong understanding of Jesus despite of the fact that he came
up with the same year 2011 AD as I did for the end of the world.Just
we both have opposing views on the end of the world the same can be
said on how we understand Jesus Christ !
He says Jesus is God the Father ! And he became Son of God after he
rose from death before the foundation of the world .He undercut the
doctrine of the Trinity he is not aware of ! Claiming God is Triune.
He states God will destroy the whole universe on October 21,2011 AD
which is not true !
God will destroy the wicked and this way the old wicked world will
pass away in 2011 AD while the righteous will inherit this earth and
live on it for ever !
Psalm 128 holds a good key ! Every servant of God Yahweh is promised
to be blessed with a wife and children and it can be that some
servants of God did not marry in this life before they died or came to
the time when the end of the world takes place. So they must get their
wives in the Paradise.That in turn proves there will be sexual
intimacy in the Paradise which is a happy news that can make saved
people very happy for ever and thanks God Yahweh for that how good and
great He is to create sex for us.
Harold Camping again came to a very twisted picture of eternal life he
is claiming there will be no sexual intimacy in the Paradise !
So now you can see how different we may be on understanding who is
Jesus Christ according to the Bible .
I wrote on the subject who has the right Jesus in recent past and you
can learn on how I understand Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the man from heaven .He was always the same .
After the resurrection 1 Timothy 2.5 : there is ( not there was ) one
mediator between God and the men; the man Jesus Christ !
He is the first spiritually adopted son - so he is " Son of God ".
He is figuratively called God as Moses was called God as well but he
is greater than Moses as he is "God" of the the New Testament.
He is the Saviour ; Moses was a Saviour .
We pray to God who is the Father but we don't pray to Jesus ; we may
pray for him - Psalm 72.11-15 is a crystal clear proof how nominal
christiandom twisted the Scriptures and it deserves to be destroyed
soon .
Parish *~
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3464b131-5e20-4d97...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> He states God will destroy the whole universe on October 21,2011 AD
> which is not true !
Of course it's not true. Since you admit Camping is full of crap, why do you
listen to him?
> Psalm 128 holds a good key ! Every servant of God Yahweh is promised
> to be blessed with a wife and children and it can be that some
> servants of God did not marry in this life before they died or came to
> the time when the end of the world takes place.
Why do you insist Jesus LIED? He clearly stated no one would be given in
marriage after Armageddon.
So they must get their
> wives in the Paradise.
Not all men want to marry or raise a family. And why do you call Jesus a
liar? He clearly stated no one would be given in marriage after Armageddon.
That in turn proves there will be sexual
> intimacy in the Paradise which is a happy news that can make saved
> people very happy for ever and thanks God Yahweh for that how good and
> great He is to create sex for us.
There is noting in the bible even suggesting there will be sex and
reproduction after Armageddon. This is nothing but your wishful thinking.
And why do you call Jesus a liar? He clearly stated no one would be given
in marriage after Armageddon.
> Harold Camping again came to a very twisted picture of eternal life he
> is claiming there will be no sexual intimacy in the Paradise !
He's RIGHT for a change. Maybe the old con-man read the bible for himself,
something you admit you never did.
> So now you can see how different we may be on understanding who is
> Jesus Christ according to the Bible .
> I wrote on the subject who has the right Jesus in recent past and you
> can learn on how I understand Jesus Christ.
You claimed you never read the bible so you cannot understand Jesus and his
message.
> We pray to God who is the Father but we don't pray to Jesus ; we may
> pray for him - Psalm 72.11-15 is a crystal clear proof how nominal
> christiandom twisted the Scriptures and it deserves to be destroyed
> soon .
Like all those smokers you believe should be destroyed? If no woman would
have you now, none would have you after the resurrection. God cannot force
any woman to marry you and have sex with you even if Jesus was wrong or lied
as you claim.
duke
> Most churches through the most of the time had twisted view on who is
>Jesus Christ.
>If I used this subject on how Jesus was understood I would come to a
>conclusion that Jesus was not understood by most christians and it is
>now at the endtime
It's not the endtimes. Not even theSon of God knew the date, so you sure don't.
>Harold Camping is Jesus is God the Father!
NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
1+1+1=1
> And he became Son of God after he
>rose from death before the foundation of the world
Wrong. Jesus is God become man. Your views and those of Camping are heretical,
not Christian.
But then again, the JWs are not considered Christian anyway, professing the
Jesus did not possess a dual nature - fully man and fully divine.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Bill M
> Jesus Christ.
The Jesus story is totally implausible. It is not supported by any solid
objective verifiable evidence. Should we believe in a god for whom there is
NO solid objective evidence? The evidence available is quite the contrary.
It is totally implausible! This Jesus belief is based purely on faith in
totally implausible stories, not factual objective verifiable evidence of
any kind.
The Bibles were written recopied and modified by hundreds of men of unknown
veracity and honesty over a time span of several thousands years. There is
NO ORIGINAL IN EXISTENCE. What ever the originals were have rotted and
disappeared thousands of years ago. We don't know what the originals said.
The Bibles are nothing more than a mixture of myths, fables, contradictions
and impossible tales. There are 18 different versions alone of the English
Bible interpretations.
This all powerful God supposedly created this huge Universe that is over 13
BILLION years old. What it was and how long it existed before, we simply do
not know. Any opinion before those 13 BILLION years is pure speculation -
not scientifically proven fact!
The Universe is more than 20 BILLION LIGHT YEARS" in diameter (light travels
at 186,000 miles per SECOND). How much larger it is we simply do not know.
It consists of many trillions of stars and planets. The earth is less than a
speck of dust in this huge Universe. There are over 6 1/2 BILLION humans on
this earth at present. Many billions more have existed before now but have
died. Man is but a grain of sand on a large beach relative to the size of
the Earth. Why would the creator of this huge complex Universe be concerned
about these billions of specks of dust?
According to the Bibles, God supposedly created the heavens, the earth and
everything in it in six days. Adam, the original man was created during this
time from 'dust'. His mate, Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.
According to the Bibles this all powerful omnipotent God supposedly created
this huge complex Universe in six days!
This God supposedly came to earth over 2,000 years ago as a man named Jesus
to save mankind from the sins that God himself created and to preach his
wishes and commands. Archeological evidence indicates 'modern' man has
existed approximately 100,000 years. Why did god wait all those years to
come to earth to preach his word and pay for man's sins (which he himself
created!)?
This all powerful creator of this huge Universe supposedly came to Earth as
a baby in a cold manger, in the middle of winter and was born of a virgin
called Mary. Why would he choose to be born in such an ingenuous way?
Arrogant humans had to make up a myth
about a god arriving from the womb of another human.
If Jesus was supposedly born of a Virgin Mary and she was the wife of
Joseph, why was she still a virgin? Why did the women need to be married to
a mortal in order to give birth to a god? And why couldn't this all powerful
god creator just come to earth in what ever form he chose to create? He
supposedly created the Universe and everything in it!
If he could create Adam instantly from dust and Eve from a rib, why did he
use this slow tortuous means to create himself as a god man on earth???
He supposedly grew up as a normal child and worked as a carpenter as an
adult. There are no details in the Bibles about his younger years. After
about THIRTY YEARS, he supposedly announced to the local inhabitants that he
was Jesus the God savior from heaven to tell them God's wishes and commands.
Over the course of his ministry, Jesus is said to have performed various
miracles, including healings, exorcisms, walking on water, turning water
into wine, and raising several people, such as Lazarus, from the dead. If
this God could do these things why did it not just place Jesus directly on
earth thousands of years earlier? Why did it need to have a virgin birth and
thirty years to grow to preach for just a few years? Why has he failed to
communicate directly with any of the sane billions over the past 2,000
years?
There are no significant records of Jesus', (the Christ) actual existence in
the non religious documents of the era. Depending upon which Bible story you
choose, it is claimed he preached his doctrines for one, two or three years.
In any case, why put himself on earth for some thirty inconsequential years
and only use a few of these years to preach his doctrines? And then not use
his omnipotent power to preach to the WHOLE world instead of just a
miniscule part of the world around Jerusalem?
The Twelve Apostles and others closest to Jesus were all Jews as shown by
Jesus' statements that his mission is directed only to those of the house of
Israel (Matthew 15:24, Matthew 10:1-6) and by the fact that only after the
death of Jesus did the apostles agree with Paul that the teaching of the
gospel could be extended to uncircumcised Gentiles.
Jesus was baptized. In Christianity, baptism is the sacrament of
regeneration and initiation into the Christian church. According to a theme
of St. Paul the Apostle, baptism is death to a former life and the emergence
of a new person, signified by the conferring of a new name; it is the total
annulment of the sins of one's past, from which one emerges a totally
innocent person. Then why would a 'God Jesus' need to be baptized?
His sermons and teachings only reached a miniscule part of the world
population at that time because he did not speak via the equivalent of
International Radio or TV. IF he was an ALL powerful creator of the world,
he certainly would have the ability to speak to ALL of mankind by means at
least as effective as man. Why did this all powerful god creator wait
100,000 years to come and preach to only a very small segment of the world,
for a period of one two or three years, (depending on which Bible you
choose) and then leave us without ANY solid objective verifiable evidence of
his existence, his wishes and commands? Why did he not preserve his
teachings in some permanent form for all of mankind in the future? The
Bibles were supposedly written by 56 or more authors of unknown veracity
over a period of thousands of years. There is NO - NADA original of any of
the Bibles in existence. The originals have all rotted and disappeared
thousands of years ago. The existing Bibles are all hand copies of copies
etc. of unknown actual origin. Why would any omnipotent God, creator of this
huge complex Universe, provide his message in such a sloppy, inaccurate,
unreliable, questionable and confusing manor???
Why did he not use his great omnipotent powers to preach to the WHOLE world
from his Heaven, instead of just preaching to an insignificant portion of
the world?? Why does he leave most of mankind totally in the dark?
He supposedly distributed his word via hand copied books called the Bibles.
Yet NONE of the Bibles were written during his 'claimed' time on earth. The
original Bibles were written and hand recopied more than 1500 years before
the invention of the printing press. There is no evidence that Jesus ever
wrote a word. NO ORIGINAL copies of ANY of the Bibles exist. Why did he not
preserve them? The Bibles now in existence are hand copies of copies etc. of
unknown and doubtful veracity. They are largely myths, fables, hearsay and
implausible tales. The four books of the New Testament were written and
copied somewhere between 60 and 200 years AFTER Jesus' supposed existence.
None of the authors could have known him directly. They are all third person
fictional narratives of unknown veracity. Why would a real god, creator of
this huge Universe, not arrange for the creation of clear, authentic,
contemporary and permanent copies of his word?
Why does God not currently and directly communicate with us? Why is he being
so mysterious and hidden?
During his brief adulthood, preaching his word, he is 'claimed' to have
restored site to a few of the blind, restored mobility to a few of the
crippled and restored health to a few of the sick. Why was he so niggardly
about helping the poor, the disabled and the sick? Is this the likely
conduct of an all loving God creator?
After the one, two or three years he preached, (depending on which Bible
book you believe) to only the locals. His preaching only reached a very
small part of the world's population. He did not avail himself of any
communication means as effective as Radio, TV, Telephone or the Internet. He
then allowed himself to be painfully and brutally crucified on a cross
between two criminals to pay for man's sins (which he created). If he died
on the cross to save mankind, why was mankind no better off after this
supposed crucifixion than before? Was all this blood and gore for nothing?!
The Roman courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned
without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found
guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought
before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of
wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found
him innocent; but the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and to please
the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man whom he had found innocent, should
be delivered to the executioners to be crucified! Also, real criminals were
crucified by being 'tied' to the cross - not nailed! What was the purpose of
all this blood and gore? Why should any REAL god need to suffer for man's
sins??? (which god himself created)
Why was his life and crucifixion not in any of the numerous historical
documents of the time??? Why is this only in church documents?
If Jesus performed the wonderful miracles the New Testament describes, why
did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people
would demand that a kind and loving man who went about doing good works, who
preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead - that they
could not be appeased until they had brutally crucified the noblest
benefactor of mankind? This makes NO sense at all!
If he could create the Universe and every thing in it, (including sin) why
did he not just forgive man's sins, directly from his heaven, without all
this blood and gore? Three days after he died he supposedly rose from the
dead and returned to his heaven. Why did he wait uncomfortably in a crypt
for three days after his death and internment to return to his magnificent
heaven? Why did he wait 30 years!? How can an immortal god die? Jesus did
not die for our sins. People are still praying to him in his supposed
heaven!
What was the logic and purpose of this gruesome and painful killing? Only a
miniscule part of the world's population at the time would be aware of this
claimed sacrifice.
Billions of people today are still not knowledgeable believers of this
highly implausible story. Why did he not preserve a video tape, DVD or other
permanent record of this historic episode? If man is capable of these
devices certainly a god creator should be equally or more proficient.
Why did this God wait over 100,000 years to communicate with only a
minuscule portion of humanity in such a crude and ineffective manner and not
leave any authenticated documents accurately substantiating his appearance?
Why has he failed to communicate further for over 2,000 years?
He supposedly went through this torture and humiliating death to pay for
mans sins which he himself created! Why did he not just wave his wand and
forgive mans sins and skip all the ridiculous blood and gore??? Why did he
create sin in the first place? This should be no problem for a god that
created Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib, and this immense Universe.
Why do people supposedly still have the same sins that he died for?
Why does he encourage or permit Christians to drink his blood and eat his
flesh? Isn't this a pagan ritual?
Why does he continue to allow thousands of greedy self serving men to
deliver his word to his flock in such a vague, inconsistent, contradictory,
and ineffectual manner? There are hundreds of different Christian sects and
beliefs. There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs and
practices. Why does he allow this gross confusion? Why does he not
communicate clearly and DIRECTLY to his entire flock that he is the real god
and all the others are fakes? It would be more responsible and more
effective to eliminate this gross confusion?
If he is the real god, why does he even permit the belief and propagation of
thousands of false gods and false religions?
The Christ tale is obviously pure myth and legend.
The objective evidence is that God did not create man but quite the
contrary; that man created Gods!
OB...@aol.com
-------
I wrote on the subject there will be marriages in the Paradise . Just
go back and find out what are my views and compare with the Bible and
what others are teaching.
OB...@aol.com
-----
Why don't you listen to the Bible ? 1 Timothy 2.5 : there is one God
and there is one maediator between God and men ;the man Jesus Christ.
God is on one side and mediator is in the middle and the other
remaining side people .
John 17.3 :
And this is eternal life to know Thee the Only True God and Jesus whom
Thou has sent.
John 20.17:
I go to my Father and your Father and my God and your God.
Don't be wiser than Jesus Christ .
OB...@aol.com
Jehovah's Witnesses are the best from among all religions of the world
in understanding who is Jesus = 50%.
They are followed by the Dawn movement - Indpendent Jehovah's
Witnesses .
Then we have a long gap and most christian churches may be ascribed 5%
to what they know about Jesus.
Harold Camping with his confusion Jesus is God the Father mus be
placed behind them !
*** Camping's timeline and calculations are acceptable but many of
his teachings must be rejected.
If I didn't have my own prediction for 2011 AD I I would not believe
Camping on his date 2011 AD.
OB...@aol.com
deny Jesus Christ if we use their doctrine that soul is immortal in
man !
Florence B. Nitengail
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:51933917-07ae-4214...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
He isn't. Duke is just parroting what the priests taught him.
Sockie
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:398622c6-ea7d-495e...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Using the Bible it can be easily proven today that most christians
> deny Jesus Christ if we use their doctrine that soul is immortal in
> man !
>
So do you still believe in the creation story? Adam and Eve? You do know
the Pope believes evolution occurred don't you? He doesn't deny it anymore.
Florence B. Nitengail
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4lv5e5lvr1034rdtr...@4ax.com...
>
> NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
> Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
Nowhere in the bible does Jesus make that claim. He never once said there
was one God in three people. Where did you get that from?
>
> Wrong. Jesus is God become man. Your views and those of Camping are
> heretical,
> not Christian.
Jesus never made that claim either.
>
> But then again, the JWs are not considered Christian anyway, professing
> the
> Jesus did not possess a dual nature - fully man and fully divine.
Jesus never professed a dual nature. These are all things the RCC church
leaders came up with.
Sam Taylor
>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:02:23 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Most churches through the most of the time had twisted view on who is
>>Jesus Christ.
>>If I used this subject on how Jesus was understood I would come to a
>>conclusion that Jesus was not understood by most christians and it is
>>now at the endtime
>
>It's not the endtimes. Not even theSon of God knew the date, so you sure don't.
>
>>Harold Camping is Jesus is God the Father!
>
>NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
>Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>
>1+1+1=1
1+1+2 2+1-=3
SO
1+1+1=3
>
>> And he became Son of God after he
>>rose from death before the foundation of the world
WRONG He became the New Creation
He stopped being the Son of G-D
when G-D gave His Son, and He became flesh.
the Secret is when G-D gave His Son
HE NEVER GOT HIM BACK
otherwise
it would say "for G-D so loved the World
He (G-D) Loaned His Only begotten Son.
Parish *~
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5607db03-96e7-4304...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 12:51�am, "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid>
-------
I wrote on the subject there will be marriages in the Paradise .
:: Jesus said none will be given in marriage in Paradise. Why should
Christian people believe you and not Jesus?
Just
go back and find out what are my views and compare with the Bible and
what others are teaching.
:: The bible says there will be no marriage in Paradise.
READ THIS from the bible:
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they
all had her." (Matthew 22:23-28 KJV)
The Lord's answer, beginning with the obvious "Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit"
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God.
**** For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,
but are as the angels of God in heaven. ****
:: Why will you not accept what Jesus said?
duke
>On Oct 24, 9:23?am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net>
>-----
> Why don't you listen to the Bible ? 1 Timothy 2.5 : there is one God
>and there is one maediator between God and men ;the man Jesus Christ.
>God is on one side and mediator is in the middle and the other
>remaining side people .
Ah, a major theological error - the man Jesus is not the mediator. He died to
show us obedience to the Father, rose from the dead to show us our rewards in
giving obedience to the Father, and the ascended to the Father, to assume his
assigned post at the right hand of the Father. The 2nd person of the Triune God
is the mediator, not the man Jesus.
>John 17.3 :
>And this is eternal life to know Thee the Only True God and Jesus whom
>Thou has sent.
>John 20.17:
>I go to my Father and your Father and my God and your God.
>
>Don't be wiser than Jesus Christ .
You should stop trying.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:4lv5e5lvr1034rdtr...@4ax.com...
>>
>> NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
>> Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>Nowhere in the bible does Jesus make that claim. He never once said there
>was one God in three people. Where did you get that from?
Are you telling me that you don't even know the basic definition of a Christian
- God become man in the person of Jesus, Jesus being given all authority in
heaven and on earth by the Father, and then ascending to the Father but sending
the Holy Spirit in his place?
>> Wrong. Jesus is God become man. Your views and those of Camping are
>> heretical, not Christian.
>Jesus never made that claim either.
You just dropped out of the group that at least knows a tiny bit about God.
>> But then again, the JWs are not considered Christian anyway, professing
>> the Jesus did not possess a dual nature - fully man and fully divine.
>Jesus never professed a dual nature. These are all things the RCC church
>leaders came up with.
Haahaahaahaahaahaa.
duke
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:23:25 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:02:23 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Most churches through the most of the time had twisted view on who is
>>>Jesus Christ.
>>>If I used this subject on how Jesus was understood I would come to a
>>>conclusion that Jesus was not understood by most christians and it is
>>>now at the endtime
>>
>>It's not the endtimes. Not even theSon of God knew the date, so you sure don't.
>>
>>>Harold Camping is Jesus is God the Father!
>>
>>NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
>>Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>>
>>1+1+1=1
>1+1+2 2+1-=3
> SO
>1+1+1=3
Well, you definitely don't know what the triune God is.
>>> And he became Son of God after he
>>>rose from death before the foundation of the world
>WRONG He became the New Creation
>He stopped being the Son of G-D
>when G-D gave His Son, and He became flesh.
Why did he stop being the "Son of God"?
>the Secret is when G-D gave His Son
>HE NEVER GOT HIM BACK
So, he never ascended to the Father 40 days after his resurrection?
���SAba*GrAcile����
"Sam Taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> skrev i melding
news:4ae3a3e9...@news.teranews.com...
These loony discussion are typical for todays self-
confessed knowitalls. Jesus didn't hold speeches
about knowing this stuff, neither did the followers
fight about God or Jesus' natures, only that God
was the Father and Jesus his son that he gave man.
And that Jesus sits on Gods right hand in his Kingdom
right now. The point is that he rose and now sits there.
He can't sit right next to himself now can he?
>ng. Jesus is God become man. Your views and those of Camping are
>heretical,
>>not Christian.
>>
>>But then again, the JWs are not considered Christian anyway, professing
>>the
>>Jesus did not possess a dual nature - fully man and fully divine.
>>
>>The Dukester, American-American
>>*****
>>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>>Pope Paul VI
>>*****
>
Saba
���SAba*GrAcile����
"Sockie" <Socki...@Socksland.com> skrev i melding
news:f8LEm.64232$Ku5....@newsfe04.iad...
Well if you need to know what the Pope believes to believe in
something then I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that belief.
S
Sam Taylor
>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:04:03 GMT, cyg...@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:23:25 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:02:23 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most churches through the most of the time had twisted view on who is
>>>>Jesus Christ.
>>>>If I used this subject on how Jesus was understood I would come to a
>>>>conclusion that Jesus was not understood by most christians and it is
>>>>now at the endtime
>>>
>>>It's not the endtimes. Not even theSon of God knew the date, so you sure don't.
>>>
>>>>Harold Camping is Jesus is God the Father!
>>>
>>>NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
>>>Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>>>
>>>1+1+1=1
>
>>1+1+2 2+1-=3
>> SO
>>1+1+1=3
>
>Well, you definitely don't know what the triune God is.
>
>>>> And he became Son of God after he
>>>>rose from death before the foundation of the world
>
>>WRONG He became the New Creation
>>He stopped being the Son of G-D
>>when G-D gave His Son, and He became flesh.
>
>Why did he stop being the "Son of God"?
Because He (Jesus) gave it all up to BECOME FLESH 100% Flesh
>
>>the Secret is when G-D gave His Son
>>HE NEVER GOT HIM BACK
>
>So, he never ascended to the Father 40 days after his resurrection?
>
as the 2nd Adam, not ther Son of G-D 100% flesh and bone.
and was glorified in becoming the :New Creation"
and if You see Him (Jesus) as He (jesus) is You will
become like Him
YOUR HOPE IS NOT BECOMING G-D but
becoming the "New Creation"
Sam Taylor
You was what You Was
AND
You IS what You IS
You ain't what You Was
For
you are what you is.
write this down, You may be quized on this later.
The Bible says Jesus Was G-D..........
SO
it are saying Jesus ain't an IS G-D
for You ain't no longer what You WAS
but
are what You IS, not what You Was.
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:30:40 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:04:03 GMT, cyg...@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:23:25 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:02:23 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most churches through the most of the time had twisted view on who is
>>>>Jesus Christ.
>>>>If I used this subject on how Jesus was understood I would come to a
>>>>conclusion that Jesus was not understood by most christians and it is
>>>>now at the endtime
>>>
>>>It's not the endtimes. Not even theSon of God knew the date, so you sure don't.
>>>
>>>>Harold Camping is Jesus is God the Father!
>>>
>>>NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
>>>Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>>>
>>>1+1+1=1
>
>>1+1+2 2+1-=3
>> SO
>>1+1+1=3
>
>Well, you definitely don't know what the triune God is.
>
>>>> And he became Son of God after he
>>>>rose from death before the foundation of the world
>
>>WRONG He became the New Creation
>>He stopped being the Son of G-D
>>when G-D gave His Son, and He became flesh.
>
>Why did he stop being the "Son of God"?
Because He (Jesus) gave it all up to BECOME FLESH 100% Flesh
>
>>the Secret is when G-D gave His Son
>>HE NEVER GOT HIM BACK
>
>So, he never ascended to the Father 40 days after his resurrection?
>
as the 2nd Adam, not ther Son of G-D 100% flesh and bone.
and was glorified in becoming the :New Creation"
and if You see Him (Jesus) as He (jesus) is You will
become like Him
YOUR HOPE IS NOT BECOMING G-D but
becoming the "New Creation"
>
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:15:52 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:4lv5e5lvr1034rdtr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>>> The
>>> Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>
>>Nowhere in the bible does Jesus make that claim. He never once said there
>>was one God in three people. Where did you get that from?
>
> Are you telling me that you don't even know the basic definition of a
> Christian
> - God become man in the person of Jesus,
That's NOT what the bible says. That's what the Pope came up with. Read the
bible before spewing forth lies and nonsense.
Jesus being given all authority in
> heaven and on earth by the Father, and then ascending to the Father but
> sending
> the Holy Spirit in his place?
That's NOT what the bible or Jesus says. That's what the Pope came up with.
>
>>> Wrong. Jesus is God become man. Your views and those of Camping are
>>> heretical, not Christian.
>
>>Jesus never made that claim either.
>
> You just dropped out of the group that at least knows a tiny bit about
> God.
It seems none of you religious fanatics ever actually READ the bible for
yourselves.
>
>>> But then again, the JWs are not considered Christian anyway, professing
>>> the Jesus did not possess a dual nature - fully man and fully divine.
>
>>Jesus never professed a dual nature. These are all things the RCC church
>>leaders came up with.
>
> Haahaahaahaahaahaa.
LOL LOL LOL!!!!! Show us were Jesus made that claim - that's he has a dual
nature - being 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!! Hahahahahah.... hehe....
:-D
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:h1k8e5dmobm71iub5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:15:52 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4lv5e5lvr1034rdtr...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> NO WAY. There is one God in 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>>>> The
>>>> Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
>>
>>>Nowhere in the bible does Jesus make that claim. He never once said there
>>>was one God in three people. Where did you get that from?
>>
>> Are you telling me that you don't even know the basic definition of a
>> Christian
>> - God become man in the person of Jesus,
>
>That's NOT what the bible says. That's what the Pope came up with. Read the
>bible before spewing forth lies and nonsense.
Sorry, the Pope didn't come up with that. It's in Luke 1.
>>Jesus being given all authority in
>> heaven and on earth by the Father, and then ascending to the Father but
>> sending the Holy Spirit in his place?
>That's NOT what the bible or Jesus says. That's what the Pope came up with.
Sorry, the Pope didn't come up with that. It's in Mat 28 and John 14.
>>>> Wrong. Jesus is God become man. Your views and those of Camping are
>>>> heretical, not Christian.
>>>Jesus never made that claim either.
>> You just dropped out of the group that at least knows a tiny bit about
>> God.
>It seems none of you religious fanatics ever actually READ the bible for
>yourselves.
You should read Luke 1, Mat 28, and John 14 for the first time in your life.
>>>> But then again, the JWs are not considered Christian anyway, professing
>>>> the Jesus did not possess a dual nature - fully man and fully divine.
>>>Jesus never professed a dual nature. These are all things the RCC church
>>>leaders came up with.
>> Haahaahaahaahaahaa.
>LOL LOL LOL!!!!! Show us were Jesus made that claim - that's he has a dual
>nature - being 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!! Hahahahahah.... hehe....
Luke 1.
duke
And the dual nature make him also 100% divine. He only had one human parent.
>>>the Secret is when G-D gave His Son
>>>HE NEVER GOT HIM BACK
>>So, he never ascended to the Father 40 days after his resurrection?
>as the 2nd Adam, not ther Son of G-D 100% flesh and bone.
But of course, because he NEVER allowed his 100% divine nature to protect
himself. The man Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended to
the Father.
> and was glorified in becoming the :New Creation"
>and if You see Him (Jesus) as He (jesus) is You will
>become like Him
>YOUR HOPE IS NOT BECOMING G-D but
>becoming the "New Creation"
Jesus showed us in his human self how to become a new creation.
Sam Taylor
now we go to 2 natures instead of 3?
Your Dual or Triple nature is NOT found in Scripture
He gave up it all to become Flesh
that is 100% flesh
by your math 200% Flesh
OB...@aol.com
catholic religion by studying the Bible on my own and came to a view
the catholic religion is the most twisted form of christianity when
compared to the Bible.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:19:04 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>
>>dual
>>nature - being 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!! Hahahahahah.... hehe....
>
> Luke 1.
>
LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing at Luke 1 making any such statement
by Jesus.
Pastor Dave
<no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>
>> Luke 1.
>
> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
> at Luke 1 making any such statement
> by Jesus.
He probably meant John 1. :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Christianity is the only army that shoots its own
wounded soldiers.
OB...@aol.com
----
There is one God and one mediator between God and men ;the man Jesus
Christ.
1 Timothy 2.5 is a superb proof who was Jesus after he rose already he
is a man.
But he is called figuratively God as Moses himself was called God -
Exodus 7.1.
Simply the word God used towards Moses and Jesus must be read in the
context of the other related verses in the Bible.
God the Father is the only true God according to Jesus - John
17.3;20.17.
If that is true almost all christian churches are dead wrong on who is
Jesus Christ of the Bible and deserve to be rejected and destroyed
openly if Jesus comes back in 2011 AD.
OB...@aol.com
Jesus is the first spiritually adopted son of God = Son of God.
He is the visible image of invisible God - his Father.
God is present everywhere in the universe but Jesus is in one place at
the same time .He is in heavens right now.
He is the man - 1 Timothy 2.5 ( not that he was .. he is always ) .
He is the greatest servant of God ,can be called God figuratively just
as Moses was called God .But Jesus is greater than Moses.He saves
better than Moses did. Jesus can be called Saviour.
To make clear distinction the English language helps us better than
Hebrew that has all small letters .
Yahweh the only true God - John 17.3 = GOD.
Jesus as Son of God - John 20.17 = God.
144000 menservants of God and Jesus = gods.
In the Hebrew in all cases we would have words god or gods :
yahweh = god, jesus = god , 144000 servants = gods .
We would have to read these words in the context they appear .Each
word "god" has a different connotation.
It was misunderstood and that is why so many thought and think Jesus
is God literally.And Camping claims that Jesus is God and he is the
Father and the Holy Ghost !
In view of the above most religions are dead wrong and unacceptable to
God of the Bible .
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Dawn people who are indpendent Bible
Students and the former International Bible Students can be linked to
my teaching based on the Bible.
Overwhelming majority of people professing to be christians don't have
Jesus at all They are not christian at all in actuality.
duke
Uh, Luke is in the bible. What book are you reading?
duke
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
><no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>
>>> Luke 1.
>>
>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>> by Jesus.
>
>He probably meant John 1. :)
NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
duke
>On Oct 30, 6:37?am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>----
>There is one God and one mediator between God and men ;the man Jesus
>Christ.
>1 Timothy 2.5 is a superb proof who was Jesus after he rose already he
>is a man.
>But he is called figuratively God as Moses himself was called God -
>Exodus 7.1.
>Simply the word God used towards Moses and Jesus must be read in the
>context of the other related verses in the Bible.
>God the Father is the only true God according to Jesus - John
>17.3;20.17.
Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 1+1+1=1
>If that is true almost all christian churches are dead wrong on who is
>Jesus Christ of the Bible and deserve to be rejected and destroyed
>openly if Jesus comes back in 2011 AD.
He won't.
Ips-Switch
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:664da4d2-ffe0-44d9...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 6:37�am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
----
There is one God and one mediator between God and men ;the man Jesus
Christ.
= Yet Catholics pray to Mary and a whole gaggle of Saints.
1 Timothy 2.5 is a superb proof who was Jesus after he rose already he
is a man.
But he is called figuratively God as Moses himself was called God -
Exodus 7.1.
Simply the word God used towards Moses and Jesus must be read in the
context of the other related verses in the Bible.
God the Father is the only true God according to Jesus - John
17.3;20.17.
If that is true almost all christian churches are dead wrong on who is
Jesus Christ of the Bible and deserve to be rejected and destroyed
openly if Jesus comes back in 2011 AD.
= Is death and destroying people all you think about?
Florence B. Nitengail
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aagle5d7phe9raefu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>
>>> Luke 1.
>>
>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>> by Jesus.
>
> He probably meant John 1. :)
Nowhere in John 1 does Jesus claim a dual personality - to be 3 gods in one.
;-)
Parish *~
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:20:59 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 30, 6:37?am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>>----
>>There is one God and one mediator between God and men ;the man Jesus
>>Christ.
>>1 Timothy 2.5 is a superb proof who was Jesus after he rose already he
>>is a man.
>>But he is called figuratively God as Moses himself was called God -
>>Exodus 7.1.
>>Simply the word God used towards Moses and Jesus must be read in the
>>context of the other related verses in the Bible.
>
>>God the Father is the only true God according to Jesus - John
>>17.3;20.17.
>
> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 1+1+1=1
Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:37:19 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>><no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Luke 1.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>> by Jesus.
>>
>>He probably meant John 1. :)
>
> NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
There is nothing in either where Jesus claimed to be himself, his own father
and a holy spirit = three gods in one. A multi-god/man hybrid.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:ra2be5pb15go7ld0d...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:19:04 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>>
>>>>LOL LOL LOL!!!!! Show us were Jesus made that claim - that's he has a
>>>>dual
>>>>nature - being 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!! Hahahahahah.... hehe....
>>>
>>> Luke 1.
>>>
>>
>>LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>by Jesus.
>
> Uh, Luke is in the bible. What book are you reading?
The bible. Which one are you reading? What scripture are you referring to
where Jesus claims he's 3 gods in one? Himself, his own father and a holy
spirit?
Pastor Dave
<no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Luke 1.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>> by Jesus.
>>
>> He probably meant John 1. :)
>
> Nowhere in John 1 does Jesus claim a dual personality
> - to be 3 gods in one. ;-)
I was only referring to the "dual nature" part.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Why is it that our memory is good enough to retain the
least triviality that happens to us, and yet not good
enough to recollect how often we have told it to the
same person?" - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Pastor Dave
<Par...@invalid.invalid> spake thusly:
>>> God the Father is the only true God
>>> according to Jesus - John 17.3;20.17.
>>
>> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
>> 1+1+1=1
>
> Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
That's not what he said.
He said that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God.
He wasn't including the "according to Jesus" part,
in which you list certain verses.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- Richard Bozarth, Atheist
Make your choice, people! You can't have both!
Pastor Dave
<no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:37:19 -0400,
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500,
>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Luke 1.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>>> by Jesus.
>>>
>>> He probably meant John 1. :)
>>
>> NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
>
> There is nothing in either where Jesus claimed
> to be himself, his own father and a holy spirit
> = three gods in one. A multi-god/man hybrid.
I think he may have misworded his original statement.
I believe what he meant to say is in two parts:
1) Jesus had a dual nature.
2) God is three Persons in one God.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"To recognize flaws in others is common; to recognize in self,
saintly. - Unknown
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:o84re597p0i970klo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ra2be5pb15go7ld0d...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:19:04 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>>>
>>>>>LOL LOL LOL!!!!! Show us were Jesus made that claim - that's he has a
>>>>>dual
>>>>>nature - being 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!! Hahahahahah.... hehe....
>>>>
>>>> Luke 1.
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>>by Jesus.
>>
>> Uh, Luke is in the bible. What book are you reading?
>
>The bible. Which one are you reading? What scripture are you referring to
>where Jesus claims he's 3 gods in one? Himself, his own father and a holy
>spirit?
There's no such thing as 3 Gods in one. There is 1 God in 3 persons. 1+1+1=1.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:ub4re5pvm5rc129f7...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:20:59 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 30, 6:37?am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>>>----
>>>There is one God and one mediator between God and men ;the man Jesus
>>>Christ.
>>>1 Timothy 2.5 is a superb proof who was Jesus after he rose already he
>>>is a man.
>>>But he is called figuratively God as Moses himself was called God -
>>>Exodus 7.1.
>>>Simply the word God used towards Moses and Jesus must be read in the
>>>context of the other related verses in the Bible.
>>
>>>God the Father is the only true God according to Jesus - John
>>>17.3;20.17.
>>
>> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 1+1+1=1
>
>Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
I know.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:p94re5lj4b50ndpkn...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:37:19 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>><no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Luke 1.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>>> by Jesus.
>>>
>>>He probably meant John 1. :)
>>
>> NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
>
>There is nothing in either where Jesus claimed to be himself, his own father
>and a holy spirit = three gods in one. A multi-god/man hybrid.
I know.
duke
They sure are slow today, aren't they.
Parish *~
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:45:56 -0600, "Parish *~"
> <Par...@invalid.invalid> spake thusly:
>
>
>>>> God the Father is the only true God
>>>> according to Jesus - John 17.3;20.17.
>>>
>>> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
>>> 1+1+1=1
>>
>> Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
>
> That's not what he said.
>
> He said that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God.
Which are, or would be, THREE gods in one.
Parish *~
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:45:56 -0600, "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:ub4re5pvm5rc129f7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:20:59 -0700 (PDT), "OB...@aol.com"
>>> <OB...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 30, 6:37?am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>>>>----
>>>>There is one God and one mediator between God and men ;the man Jesus
>>>>Christ.
>>>>1 Timothy 2.5 is a superb proof who was Jesus after he rose already he
>>>>is a man.
>>>>But he is called figuratively God as Moses himself was called God -
>>>>Exodus 7.1.
>>>>Simply the word God used towards Moses and Jesus must be read in the
>>>>context of the other related verses in the Bible.
>>>
>>>>God the Father is the only true God according to Jesus - John
>>>>17.3;20.17.
>>>
>>> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 1+1+1=1
>>
>>Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
>
> I know.
Good. Because if he was 3 gods in one, he would have made it clear to
everyone.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:47:50 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:37:19 -0400,
>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500,
>>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Luke 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>>>> by Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> He probably meant John 1. :)
>>>
>>> NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
>>
>> There is nothing in either where Jesus claimed
>> to be himself, his own father and a holy spirit
>> = three gods in one. A multi-god/man hybrid.
>
> I think he may have misworded his original statement.
>
> I believe what he meant to say is in two parts:
>
> 1) Jesus had a dual nature.
But Jesus himself never made such a claim. What others "claimed" after his
death is irrelevant.
>
> 2) God is three Persons in one God.
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Who made this claim? It wasn't God and it wasn't Jesus.
Florence B. Nitengail
Some of us actually look things up in the bible, unlike you who just parrots
what the church tells you to repeat.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:47:50 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:p94re5lj4b50ndpkn...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:37:19 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>>>><no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Luke 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>>>> by Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>He probably meant John 1. :)
>>>
>>> NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
>>
>>There is nothing in either where Jesus claimed to be himself, his own
>>father
>>and a holy spirit = three gods in one. A multi-god/man hybrid.
>
> I know.
Then don't make claims for or about Jesus. He spoke very well for himself.
Pastor Dave
<Par...@invalid.invalid> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:45:56 -0600, "Parish *~"
>> <Par...@invalid.invalid> spake thusly:
>>
>>>>> God the Father is the only true God
>>>>> according to Jesus - John 17.3;20.17.
>>>>
>>>> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
>>>> 1+1+1=1
>>>
>>> Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
>>
>> That's not what he said.
>>
>> He said that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God.
>
> Which are, or would be, THREE gods in one.
Which is not the same as your claim that he said
that "Jesus is three Gods in one".
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity,
how can you believe that God wouldn't know how
it all started? If you can't believe the beginning,
then get off the pulpit!
Pastor Dave
<no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:47:50 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:37:19 -0400,
>>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:23:27 -0500,
>>>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show us were Jesus made that claim
>>>>>>>> - that's he has a dual nature - being
>>>>>>>> 3, 3, 3 beings in one. LOL!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Luke 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!! More hallucinations? Nothing
>>>>>> at Luke 1 making any such statement
>>>>>> by Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>> He probably meant John 1. :)
>>>>
>>>> NO, I meant Luke 1. But John 1 also.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in either where Jesus claimed
>>> to be himself, his own father and a holy spirit
>>> = three gods in one. A multi-god/man hybrid.
>>
>> I think he may have misworded his original statement.
>>
>> I believe what he meant to say is in two parts:
>>
>> 1) Jesus had a dual nature.
>
> But Jesus himself never made such a claim.
According to you. And you would dismiss anything
I show you anyway.
> What others "claimed" after his death is irrelevant.
If that is what you believe, then what are you doing here?
>> 2) God is three Persons in one God.
>> Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
>
> Who made this claim? It wasn't God and it wasn't Jesus.
According to you. But again, you would dismiss anything
that I show you.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
"For yet, A LITTLE WHILE, and He that shall come
will come, and WILL NOT TARRY. - Hebrews 10:37
duke
Right, just like he did made it clear that he is 1 God in 3 persons.
duke
And when I look up what the church tells me, viola', there it is in the bible.
:-)
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
I don't. I only repeat what he says in the bible.
Parish *~
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:11:34 -0600, "Parish *~"
> <Par...@invalid.invalid> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:45:56 -0600, "Parish *~"
>>> <Par...@invalid.invalid> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>>> God the Father is the only true God
>>>>>> according to Jesus - John 17.3;20.17.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, so is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
>>>>> 1+1+1=1
>>>>
>>>> Jesus never claimed to be three gods in one.
>>>
>>> That's not what he said.
>>>
>>> He said that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God.
>>
>> Which are, or would be, THREE gods in one.
>
> Which is not the same as your claim that he said
> that "Jesus is three Gods in one".
Same difference. Three deities in one.
Parish *~
Where? Jesus never claimed to be God and a Holy Spirit.
Florence B. Nitengail
No, you repeat what the church tells you to repeat.
Florence B. Nitengail
But it's NOT THERE! He never made any such claim.
>
>
>> What others "claimed" after his death is irrelevant.
>
> If that is what you believe, then what are you doing here?
The same thing you're doing here. ;-)
>
>
>>> 2) God is three Persons in one God.
>>> Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
>>
>> Who made this claim? It wasn't God and it wasn't Jesus.
>
> According to you. But again, you would dismiss anything
> that I show you.
You haven't shown me where Jesus made the claim.
Florence B. Nitengail
If it were in the bible you would produce it for all to see. ;-)
duke
???? But he did say that 1) all authority had been given him in heaven and on
earth and 2) he would send the Holy Spirit in his place.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
You name it, I'll provide it.
1. Jesus has a human mother and a divine Father. Dual nature.
2. Jesus said that 1) all authority had been given to him in heaven and on
earth and 2) he would send the Holy Spirit in his place.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
Yet I can turn right around and see it in Holy Script.
Parish *~
WHERE? Which version of the bible?
duke
ALL bibles.
And, if you didn't know he said that, you're posting in the wrong ng.
Parish *~
But WHERE did he say there was three gods in one?
Florence B. Nitengail
No, that's a man-god hybrid.
> 2. Jesus said that 1) all authority had been given to him in heaven and
> on
> earth and 2) he would send the Holy Spirit in his place.
Where does it say this?
duke
He didn't.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>>If it were in the bible you would produce it for all to see. ;-)
>> You name it, I'll provide it.
>> 1. Jesus has a human mother and a divine Father. Dual nature.
>No, that's a man-god hybrid.
We'll stick with dual nature.
>> 2. Jesus said that 1) all authority had been given to him in heaven and
>> on earth
Matthew 28:18 (New International Version)
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me.
>>and 2) he would send the Holy Spirit in his place.
John 14:25-26 (New International Version)
25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will
remind you of everything I have said to you.
Parish *~
Right. Jesus was a man, nothing more and he never claimed to be anything
more.
Florence B. Nitengail
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:40:51 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>>>If it were in the bible you would produce it for all to see. ;-)
>>> You name it, I'll provide it.
>
>>> 1. Jesus has a human mother and a divine Father. Dual nature.
>
>>No, that's a man-god hybrid.
>
> We'll stick with dual nature.
We'll be TRUTHFUL instead. If you cross a God with a human you get a
man-god hybrid.
>
>>> 2. Jesus said that 1) all authority had been given to him in heaven and
>>> on earth
>
> Matthew 28:18 (New International Version)
> 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth
> has
> been given to me.
That's what the scroll writer said. No know knows what Jesus exact words
were. If he did say that, it till doesn't mean he's part of a god complex of
three.
duke
Actually Jesus was God become man. He died on the cross, spent the better part
of 3 days dead, rose from the dead, and then ascended to his Father 40 days
later.
I rest my case.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:g588f5teg4p1me96q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:40:51 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>If it were in the bible you would produce it for all to see. ;-)
>>>> You name it, I'll provide it.
>>
>>>> 1. Jesus has a human mother and a divine Father. Dual nature.
>>
>>>No, that's a man-god hybrid.
>>
>> We'll stick with dual nature.
>
>We'll be TRUTHFUL instead. If you cross a God with a human you get a
>man-god hybrid.
Nope, a hybrid is part each. Jesus was fully man and fully divine, and that's
fully a dual nature.
>>>> 2. Jesus said that 1) all authority had been given to him in heaven and
>>>> on earth
>>
>> Matthew 28:18 (New International Version)
>> 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth
>> has
>> been given to me.
>That's what the scroll writer said. No know knows what Jesus exact words
>were. If he did say that, it till doesn't mean he's part of a god complex of
>three.
Nobody knows for sure what happened in the American Revolution. It's only what
the scroll writers said.
>>>>and 2) he would send the Holy Spirit in his place.
>>>Where does it say this?
>> John 14:25-26 (New International Version)
>> 25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the
>> Holy
>> Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things
>> and will
>> remind you of everything I have said to you.
Good no response.
OB...@aol.com
----
Any child of God must have dual nature : God's nature and man's nature.
duke
>On Oct 30, 2:23?am, "Florence B. Nitengail" <n...@nospamforme.net>
>----
>Any child of God must have dual nature : God's nature and man's nature.
And there is only one Child of God. His name is Jesus.
OB...@aol.com
---
The problem is not with the Bible and me you don't understand or have
not read what I wrote about Jesus Christ.
He is the Son of God - the only-begotten Son and he is the Saviour and
he is the man ,not God literally - John 17.3 : the Father is the only
true God.
Florence B. Nitengail
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:24f3bf8a-5295-4d16...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
The Catholics have 3 Gods in one. Rather than admit they have multi-Gods,
they found a way around it. ;-)
OB...@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is not in three persons we can use the Bible to show that God is
in his true worshippers .
To have God as the Trinity as it is taught by many we would have to
find in the Bible following:
1/3 of God the Father ,1/3 of God the Son ,1/3 of God the Holy
Ghost.We find that nowhere in the Bible.
duke
>On Nov 13, 12:07?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net>
>The problem is not with the Bible and me you don't understand or have
>not read what I wrote about Jesus Christ.
>He is the Son of God - the only-begotten Son and he is the Saviour and
>he is the man ,not God literally - John 17.3 : the Father is the only
>true God.
Oops, you're not a Christian, but a JW.
If you would read the NT, you'd see that the Holy Trinity exists.
duke
<no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
><OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:24f3bf8a-5295-4d16...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 13, 12:07?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net>
>---
>The problem is not with the Bible and me you don't understand or have
>not read what I wrote about Jesus Christ.
>He is the Son of God - the only-begotten Son and he is the Saviour and
>he is the man ,not God literally - John 17.3 : the Father is the only
>>true God.
>
>
>
>The Catholics have 3 Gods in one. Rather than admit they have multi-Gods,
>they found a way around it. ;-)
Nope, 1 God in 3 persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
1+1+1=1
duke
>On Nov 13, 2:35?pm, "Florence B. Nitengail" <n...@nospamforme.net>
But you can find 1) that the Father gave the Son all authority in heaven and on
earth, and 2) that the Son sent the Holy Spirit in his place.
Parish *~
>
> Actually Jesus was God become man.
He never made that claim.
>He died on the cross,
Gods cannot die or be killed.
spent the better part
> of 3 days dead,
There's no proof he was actually "dead." Until recent times there was no way
to be sure unless one cut the throat or disemboweled the person in question.
>rose from the dead,
After three days, if he were dead, the decomposition process would have
begun.
and then ascended to his Father 40 days
> later.
>
> I rest my case.
What case? You don't have a case.
Florence
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:35:25 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:24f3bf8a-5295-4d16...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>On Nov 13, 12:07?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net>
>>---
>>The problem is not with the Bible and me you don't understand or have
>>not read what I wrote about Jesus Christ.
>>He is the Son of God - the only-begotten Son and he is the Saviour and
>>he is the man ,not God literally - John 17.3 : the Father is the only
>>>true God.
>>
>>
>>
>>The Catholics have 3 Gods in one. Rather than admit they have multi-Gods,
>>they found a way around it. ;-)
>
> Nope, 1 God in 3 persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Three gods in one. Same difference.
duke
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:39ndf59sgshbv636j...@4ax.com...
>> Actually Jesus was God become man.
>He never made that claim.
Of course it is. For Jesus is revealed as a unique high priest whose once and
for all sacrifice for the sins of mankind accomplished what the Old Covenant of
animal sacrifice could not do. Thus his mercy is rooted in sharing of human
nature without yielding to sin.
>>He died on the cross,
>Gods cannot die or be killed.
The man Jesus and his human nature did.
>spent the better part
>> of 3 days dead,
>There's no proof he was actually "dead." Until recent times there was no way
>to be sure unless one cut the throat or disemboweled the person in question.
The people that were there said "dead". The spear in the side was the
culmination.
>>rose from the dead,
>After three days, if he were dead, the decomposition process would have
>begun.
Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according to scripture.
>>and then ascended to his Father 40 days
>> later.
>> I rest my case.
>What case? You don't have a case.
Everything I need to declare "Jesus is Lord".
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:0gktf595pj7h094e5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:35:25 -0600, "Florence B. Nitengail"
>> <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:24f3bf8a-5295-4d16...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Nov 13, 12:07?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net>
>>>---
>>>The problem is not with the Bible and me you don't understand or have
>>>not read what I wrote about Jesus Christ.
>>>He is the Son of God - the only-begotten Son and he is the Saviour and
>>>he is the man ,not God literally - John 17.3 : the Father is the only
>>>>true God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The Catholics have 3 Gods in one. Rather than admit they have multi-Gods,
>>>they found a way around it. ;-)
>>
>> Nope, 1 God in 3 persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
>
>Three gods in one. Same difference.
>> 1+1+1=1
Nope, one (1) God in three (3) persons.
curtjester1
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:21:46 -0600, "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >news:39ndf59sgshbv636j...@4ax.com...
> >> Actually Jesus was God become man.
> >He never made that claim.
>
> Of course it is. For Jesus is revealed as a unique high priest whose once and
> for all sacrifice for the sins of mankind accomplished what the Old Covenant of
> animal sacrifice could not do. Thus his mercy is rooted in sharing of human
> nature without yielding to sin.
>
what he might be. Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim by
denying he was God to those who wanted to accuse of being God and for
Blasphemy. He went out of his way to say if he were then according to
the scriptures THEY would be God...as he quoted it for
them...correctly as being "gods"
> >>He died on the cross,
> >Gods cannot die or be killed.
>
> The man Jesus and his human nature did.
>
But the scripture says that God cannot die.
> >spent the better part
> >> of 3 days dead,
> >There's no proof he was actually "dead." Until recent times there was no way
> >to be sure unless one cut the throat or disemboweled the person in question.
>
> The people that were there said "dead". The spear in the side was the
> culmination.
>
and he was in Hades for parts of three days according to Acts...which
not only means he was dead, means that Hades is not a hot place, but
the grave. It would be the same for Lazurus who Jesus resurrected.
He was dead as in dead, not in some other place, and was resurrected
back to physical life.
> >>rose from the dead,
> >After three days, if he were dead, the decomposition process would have
> >begun.
>
> Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according to scripture.
>
Wouldn't matter if he was raised in spirit and a 'body' was given for
those to 'see'.
> >>and then ascended to his Father 40 days
> >> later.
> >> I rest my case.
> >What case? You don't have a case.
>
> Everything I need to declare "Jesus is Lord".
>
Jesus being Lord, doesn't mean Jesus being God. I Cor. 8:5,6
CJ
Pastor Dave
<curtj...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim
> by denying he was God to those who wanted
> to accuse of being God and for Blasphemy.
Actually, no, He didn't. He never denied it.
He simply turned their own words against them.
In fact, He also said...
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you;
Before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58
They then took up stones to stone Him with
and the conversation in John 10, took place
based on that. No one claims to be before
Abraham, without claiming to be God and
furthermore, what you are displaying here
(no offense), is your ignorance of Jewish
thought. What I mean is, that you have
no understanding of what those words
would have meant to those who heard them.
And what did THE JEWS who heard Him speak
say about what He said in John 10? Will you
now listen to it and bow to what it really meant?
Or will you still insist that you know more than
those who heard it did and insist that you know
more about their culture than they did?
The simple fact is, that you cannot separate
the culture from the words and the facts is,
that Jesus Himself stated that He came
specifically to talk to the Jews and not to
the Gentiles and certainly not to ignore
all time, until you were born! :)
John 10:31-33
31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
shewed you from my Father; for which of those works
do ye stone me?
33) The Jews answered him, saying; For a good work
we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because
that THOU, being a man, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.
> He went out of his way to say if he were then according to
>the scriptures THEY would be God...as he quoted it for
>them...correctly as being "gods"
No, He went out of His way to use their words
against them, to show their hypocrisy.
But what you fail to understand, is that in that
time, in that culture, to claim to be doing what
one's father was doing, is to make yourself your
father, with your father's authority! And so,
to claim your father's authority, is to claim to
be standing there as if your father is and when
we are talking about God the Father, to claim
that one is standing there with the authority
of the Father, is to claim to be God Himself!
Now you may not like that, because it doesn't
help your case, but it is the truth and nothing
will change the fact that this is how they thought
and that this type of thinking is how the Bible,
God's word, supports them thinking.
>>> He died on the cross. Gods cannot die
>>> or be killed.
>>
>> The man Jesus and his human nature did.
>
> But the scripture says that God cannot die.
Is it your habit to ignore the response and then
pretend that the point still holds?
The man Jesus died on that cross. God did not die.
>>>> spent the better part of 3 days dead,
>>>
>>> There's no proof he was actually "dead".
>>> Until recent times there was no way to
>>> be sure unless one cut the throat or
>>> disemboweled the person in question.
>>
>> The people that were there said "dead".
>>�The spear in the side was the culmination.
>
> and he was in Hades for parts of three days
> according to Acts...which not only means he
> was dead, means that Hades is not a hot place,
> but the grave.
Hades can be called the grave, but in reality,
while it is "mistakenly mistaked" for Hell,
it isn't. It was the place of waiting until
judgment. And there were two parts to it:
Hades Paradise (Luke 23:43)
Hades Tartarus (Luke 16:24)
> It would be the same for Lazurus who Jesus
> resurrected. He was dead as in dead, not in
> some other place, and was resurrected back
> to physical life.
Spiritually, He was in Hades Paradise (1 Peter 3:19).
>>>> rose from the dead, After three days,
>>>> if he were dead, the decomposition
>>>> process would have begun.
>>
>> Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according
>> to scripture.
>
> Wouldn't matter if he was raised in spirit and a 'body'
> was given for those to 'see'.
Yes it would. It would make the Scriptures false
(Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).
>>>> and then ascended to his Father 40 days later.
>>>> I rest my case.
>>>
>>> What case? You don't have a case.
>>
>> Everything I need to declare "Jesus is Lord".
>
> Jesus being Lord, doesn't mean Jesus being God. I Cor. 8:5,6
Of course it does, since no one can do what He did,
except God. Especially causing His own resurrection!
In that same chapter it talks about this and note that
it says that Jesus has the power to lay down His life
and to take it again and that the power is indeed His
and that could not be true of anyone less than God!
John 10:17-21
17) Therefore doth My Father love me, because
I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18) No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down
of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it again. This commandment
have I received of My Father.
9) There was a division therefore again among
the Jews for these sayings.
20) And many of them said, He hath a devil
and is mad; why hear ye Him?
21) Others said, These are not the words of Him
that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of
the blind?
There was a division, based on what just happened,
which was them wanting to stone Him because He
had, by their own understanding, claimed to be God!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Any war that requires the suspension of reason
as a necessity for support is a bad war."
-Norman Mailer
duke
>On Nov 20, 3:18�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:21:46 -0600, "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:39ndf59sgshbv636j...@4ax.com...
>> >> Actually Jesus was God become man.
>> >He never made that claim.
>>
>> Of course �it is. �For Jesus is revealed as a unique high priest whose once and
>> for all sacrifice for the sins of mankind accomplished what the Old Covenant of
>> animal sacrifice could not do. �Thus his mercy is rooted in sharing of human
>> nature without yielding to sin.
>>
>But he never made the claim which is different than speculating on
>what he might be. Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim by
>denying he was God to those who wanted to accuse of being God and for
>Blasphemy.
Jesus, as he walked the earth 2000 years ago, was fully man. Elsewise,
everything he went thru, including the cross, would have been meaningless unless
he did it as a man.
> He went out of his way to say if he were then according to
>the scriptures THEY would be God...as he quoted it for
>them...correctly as being "gods"
>
>> >>He died on the cross,
>> >Gods cannot die or be killed.
>>
>> The man Jesus and his human nature did.
>>
>But the scripture says that God cannot die.
He was fully man.
>> >spent the better part
>> >> of 3 days dead,
>> >There's no proof he was actually "dead." Until recent times there was no way
>> >to be sure unless one cut the throat or disemboweled the person in question.
>> The people that were there said "dead". �The spear in the side was the
>> culmination.
>and he was in Hades for parts of three days according to Acts...which
>not only means he was dead, means that Hades is not a hot place, but
>the grave. It would be the same for Lazurus who Jesus resurrected.
>He was dead as in dead, not in some other place, and was resurrected
>back to physical life.
Courtesy of the Father.
>> >>rose from the dead,
>> >After three days, if he were dead, the decomposition process would have
>> >begun.
>> Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according to scripture.
>Wouldn't matter if he was raised in spirit and a 'body' was given for
>those to 'see'.
He wasn't "raised in spirit". He was raised as man, to show us our future for
following him is full and complete obedience to the Father.
That's what the cross was about: "If it be your will, spare me this cup, not my
will but your, almighty Father." And resurrection is our reward also along with
ascension to the Father.
>> >>and then ascended to his Father 40 days
>> >> later.
>> >> I rest my case.
>> >What case? You don't have a case.
>> Everything I need to declare "Jesus is Lord".
>Jesus being Lord, doesn't mean Jesus being God. I Cor. 8:5,6
"He is alive" is the Easter Word.
curtjester1
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:19:00 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> > Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim
> > by denying he was God to those who wanted
> > to accuse of being God and for Blasphemy.
>
> Actually, no, He didn't. He never denied it.
> He simply turned their own words against them.
>
> In fact, He also said...
>
> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you;
> Before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58
>
Yes and he definitely existed before Abraham. And if they really knew
the scriptures they would understand he was created from Proverbs
chapter 8 as God's "earliest of achievements."
> They then took up stones to stone Him with
> and the conversation in John 10, took place
> based on that. No one claims to be before
> Abraham, without claiming to be God and
> furthermore, what you are displaying here
> (no offense), is your ignorance of Jewish
> thought. What I mean is, that you have
> no understanding of what those words
> would have meant to those who heard them.
>
The Jews were ignorant of lots of things as Jesus would point out
repeatedly, especially to their leaders, The Pharisees.
> And what did THE JEWS who heard Him speak
> say about what He said in John 10? Will you
> now listen to it and bow to what it really meant?
> Or will you still insist that you know more than
> those who heard it did and insist that you know
> more about their culture than they did?
>
One simply has to see that they wanted him killed. They wanted him
killed and conspired to do so after that, no matter what they felt
about him.
> The simple fact is, that you cannot separate
> the culture from the words and the facts is,
> that Jesus Himself stated that He came
> specifically to talk to the Jews and not to
> the Gentiles and certainly not to ignore
> all time, until you were born! :)
>
> John 10:31-33
>
> 31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
> 32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
> shewed you from my Father; for which of those works
> do ye stone me?
Notice he says works and there is nothing to do with postion of
usurping to be God.
> 33) The Jews answered him, saying; For a good work
> we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because
> that THOU, being a man, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.
>
Their conjecture.
> > He went out of his way to say if he were then according to
> >the scriptures THEY would be God...as he quoted it for
> >them...correctly as being "gods"
>
> No, He went out of His way to use their words
> against them, to show their hypocrisy.
>
No he went into the scriptures to show that they themselves were
gods. If he wanted to talk about hypocrisy, he would have demolished
them as he did in Matt. 23.
> But what you fail to understand, is that in that
> time, in that culture, to claim to be doing what
> one's father was doing, is to make yourself your
> father, with your father's authority! And so,
So when Jesus is praying in John 17 and saying that he and the
disciples are one, they should interpret that to mean via their
culture that disciples should be equated with God?
> to claim your father's authority, is to claim to
> be standing there as if your father is and when
> we are talking about God the Father, to claim
> that one is standing there with the authority
> of the Father, is to claim to be God Himself!
>
All speculation and nothing based on what Jesus said.
> Now you may not like that, because it doesn't
> help your case, but it is the truth and nothing
> will change the fact that this is how they thought
> and that this type of thinking is how the Bible,
> God's word, supports them thinking.
>
What Jesus said, was that if he were really God they would have a
right to stone him, but chose to show them that they were "gods" and
they wouldn't be stoning themselves.
> >>> He died on the cross. Gods cannot die
> >>> or be killed.
>
> >> The man Jesus and his human nature did.
>
> > But the scripture says that God cannot die.
>
> Is it your habit to ignore the response and then
> pretend that the point still holds?
>
Why would I ignore that Jesus died?
> The man Jesus died on that cross. God did not die.
>
> >>>> spent the better part of 3 days dead,
>
> >>> There's no proof he was actually "dead".
> >>> Until recent times there was no way to
> >>> be sure unless one cut the throat or
> >>> disemboweled the person in question.
>
> >> The people that were there said "dead".
> >> The spear in the side was the culmination.
>
> > and he was in Hades for parts of three days
> > according to Acts...which not only means he
> > was dead, means that Hades is not a hot place,
> > but the grave.
>
> Hades can be called the grave, but in reality,
> while it is "mistakenly mistaked" for Hell,
> it isn't. It was the place of waiting until
> judgment. And there were two parts to it:
>
A good discussion on it.
http://www.thetruthabouthell.org/
> Hades Paradise (Luke 23:43)
>
I don't see a Hades in this passage. In fact to make the scripture
make sense, it would have to be taken as Jesus telling him 'this day'
as in the specific day of the week. There was no paradise to be
gained that day. And of course the paradise that would have been
given would have been the earthly paradise because their couldn't be
any for a heavenly reward until after Penecost.
> Hades Tartarus (Luke 16:24)
>
> > It would be the same for Lazurus who Jesus
> > resurrected. He was dead as in dead, not in
> > some other place, and was resurrected back
> > to physical life.
>
> Spiritually, He was in Hades Paradise (1 Peter 3:19).
>
He was in Hades, and resurrected. He was a free moral agent after his
resurrection and could have lived or not lived a life that would be
worthy of salvation.
> >>>> rose from the dead, After three days,
> >>>> if he were dead, the decomposition
> >>>> process would have begun.
>
> >> Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according
> >> to scripture.
>
> > Wouldn't matter if he was raised in spirit and a 'body'
> > was given for those to 'see'.
>
> Yes it would. It would make the Scriptures false
> (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).
>
There are raised in spirit scriptures...but the real meaning is that
he was raised and their was verification for ones to see. There will
always be 'where did the body go' possibilites for any side a person
takes on body vs. spirit.
> >>>> and then ascended to his Father 40 days later.
> >>>> I rest my case.
>
> >>> What case? You don't have a case.
>
> >> Everything I need to declare "Jesus is Lord".
>
> > Jesus being Lord, doesn't mean Jesus being God. I Cor. 8:5,6
>
> Of course it does, since no one can do what He did,
> except God. Especially causing His own resurrection!
>
Read the scripture and read Psalms 110 and Psalms 2.
> In that same chapter it talks about this and note that
> it says that Jesus has the power to lay down His life
> and to take it again and that the power is indeed His
> and that could not be true of anyone less than God!
>
Of course he has the power. He has the power to be obedient which he
was. He was given the opportunity to be a man and salvage what Adam
didn't...to be obedient until death, and therefore be a ransom. He
didn't resurrect himself, God did.
> John 10:17-21
>
> 17) Therefore doth My Father love me, because
> I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
> 18) No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down
> of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I
> have power to take it again. This commandment
> have I received of My Father.
> 9) There was a division therefore again among
> the Jews for these sayings.
> 20) And many of them said, He hath a devil
> and is mad; why hear ye Him?
> 21) Others said, These are not the words of Him
> that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of
> the blind?
>
> There was a division, based on what just happened,
> which was them wanting to stone Him because He
> had, by their own understanding, claimed to be God!
>
> --
Their own mis-guided understanding.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:19:00 -0800 (PST), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 3:18 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:21:46 -0600, "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:39ndf59sgshbv636j...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Actually Jesus was God become man.
> >> >He never made that claim.
>
> >> Of course it is. For Jesus is revealed as a unique high priest whose once and
> >> for all sacrifice for the sins of mankind accomplished what the Old Covenant of
> >> animal sacrifice could not do. Thus his mercy is rooted in sharing of human
> >> nature without yielding to sin.
>
> >But he never made the claim which is different than speculating on
> >what he might be. Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim by
> >denying he was God to those who wanted to accuse of being God and for
> >Blasphemy.
>
> Jesus, as he walked the earth 2000 years ago, was fully man. Elsewise,
> everything he went thru, including the cross, would have been meaningless unless
> he did it as a man.
>
> > He went out of his way to say if he were then according to
> >the scriptures THEY would be God...as he quoted it for
> >them...correctly as being "gods"
>
> >> >>He died on the cross,
> >> >Gods cannot die or be killed.
>
> >> The man Jesus and his human nature did.
>
> >But the scripture says that God cannot die.
>
> He was fully man.
>
But the man did die.
> >> >spent the better part
> >> >> of 3 days dead,
> >> >There's no proof he was actually "dead." Until recent times there was no way
> >> >to be sure unless one cut the throat or disemboweled the person in question.
> >> The people that were there said "dead". The spear in the side was the
> >> culmination.
> >and he was in Hades for parts of three days according to Acts...which
> >not only means he was dead, means that Hades is not a hot place, but
> >the grave. It would be the same for Lazurus who Jesus resurrected.
> >He was dead as in dead, not in some other place, and was resurrected
> >back to physical life.
>
> Courtesy of the Father.
>
Yes.
> >> >>rose from the dead,
> >> >After three days, if he were dead, the decomposition process would have
> >> >begun.
> >> Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according to scripture.
> >Wouldn't matter if he was raised in spirit and a 'body' was given for
> >those to 'see'.
>
> He wasn't "raised in spirit". He was raised as man, to show us our future for
> following him is full and complete obedience to the Father.
>
Debateable, as many scriptures talk about being raised in spirit.
Even Paul I believe saw him like an 'apparition'.
> That's what the cross was about: "If it be your will, spare me this cup, not my
> will but your, almighty Father." And resurrection is our reward also along with
> ascension to the Father.
>
If we accept the terms of the resurrection.
> >> >>and then ascended to his Father 40 days
> >> >> later.
> >> >> I rest my case.
> >> >What case? You don't have a case.
> >> Everything I need to declare "Jesus is Lord".
> >Jesus being Lord, doesn't mean Jesus being God. I Cor. 8:5,6
>
> "He is alive" is the Easter Word.
>
Alive is a good word.
CJ
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 5:07�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Yep, and rose again thru the power of God. This and his ascension to the Father
show us what we can obtain by being fully obedient to the Father as he was.
>> >> >spent the better part
>> >> >> of 3 days dead,
>> >> >There's no proof he was actually "dead." Until recent times there was no way
>> >> >to be sure unless one cut the throat or disemboweled the person in question.
>> >> The people that were there said "dead". �The spear in the side was the
>> >> culmination.
>> >and he was in Hades for parts of three days according to Acts...which
>> >not only means he was dead, means that Hades is not a hot place, but
>> >the grave. �It would be the same for Lazurus who Jesus resurrected.
>> >He was dead as in dead, not in some other place, and was resurrected
>> >back to physical life.
>>
>> Courtesy of the Father.
>>
>Yes.
>> >> >>rose from the dead,
>> >> >After three days, if he were dead, the decomposition process would have
>> >> >begun.
>> >> Nope, he was specifically uncorrupted according to scripture.
>> >Wouldn't matter if he was raised in spirit and a 'body' was given for
>> >those to 'see'.
>>
>> He wasn't "raised in spirit". �He was raised as man, to show us our future for
>> following him is full and complete obedience to the Father.
>Debateable, as many scriptures talk about being raised in spirit.
>Even Paul I believe saw him like an 'apparition'.
Actually, nothing as I understand it actually states "there stands the man,
Jesus". Nobody saw him leave the tomb, or open a door, and any such things that
would make a solid case (pardon the pun) for one way or the other.
I once tried to make a case of the man Jesus dying, and the divine Jesus rising.
And I got shot down quickly by a priest. So liturgically speaking, the man
died and rose and then ascended.
>> That's what the cross was about: �"If it be your will, spare me this cup, not my
>> will but your, almighty Father." �And resurrection is our reward also along with
>> ascension to the Father.
>If we accept the terms of the resurrection.
Isn't that the same as saying "hello, satan" if we don't.
Pastor Dave
<curtj...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Nov 22, 4:15�pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:19:00 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> > Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim
>> > by denying he was God to those who wanted
>> > to accuse of being God and for Blasphemy.
>>
>> Actually, no, He didn't. �He never denied it.
>> He simply turned their own words against them.
>
> He denied it with his rebuttal. He never said he 'was', did he?
Jesus never said, "I am not God".
>> In fact, He also said...
>>
>> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you;
>> �Before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58
>
> Yes and he definitely existed before Abraham.
> And if they really knew the scriptures they
> would understand he was created from Proverbs
> chapter 8 as God's "earliest of achievements."
Sorry, but that doesn't wash and nowhere does
it say that "wisdom = Messiah".
>> They then took up stones to stone Him with
>> and the conversation in John 10, took place
>> based on that. �No one claims to be before
>> Abraham, without claiming to be God and
>> furthermore, what you are displaying here
>> (no offense), is your ignorance of Jewish
>> thought. �What I mean is, that you have
>> no understanding of what those words
>> would have meant to those who heard them.
>
> The Jews were ignorant of lots of things as Jesus
> would point out repeatedly, especially to their
> leaders, The Pharisees.
I am speaking about your ignorance and claiming
they all, the whole crowd of them got it wrong,
is just you not wanting to deal with the facts
and wanting to rewrite the thought to suit
your own doctrine.
>> And what did THE JEWS who heard Him speak
>> say about what He said in John 10? �Will you
>> now listen to it and bow to what it really meant?
>> Or will you still insist that you know more than
>> those who heard it did and insist that you know
>> more about their culture than they did?
>
> One simply has to see that they wanted him killed.
> They wanted him killed and conspired to do so
> after that, no matter what they felt about him.
You did not deal with what I said.
>> The simple fact is, that you cannot separate
>> the culture from the words and the facts is,
>> that Jesus Himself stated that He came
>> specifically to talk to the Jews and not to
>> the Gentiles and certainly not to ignore
>> all time, until you were born! :)
>>
>> John 10:31-33
>>
>> 31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
>> 32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
>> shewed you from my Father; for which of those works
>> do ye stone me?
>
> Notice he says works and there is nothing to do
> with postion of usurping to be God.
Cutting off the last verse is dishonest.
>> 33) The Jews answered him, saying; For a good work
>> we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because
>> that THOU, being a man, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.
>
> Their conjecture.
Oh, so now you want to deal with it? But separated
from the other two verses of course! And then,
instead of dealing with it, you try to hand wave
it away.
The problem for you is that when you say that it's
"their conjecture", you are admitting that they did
indeed take His words as saying that He is God.
So while you want everyone to just believe you,
as if you couldn't be wrong and want to place
yourself on that pedestal, what this really boils
down to, is their perception vs yours.
So whom should we believe? Hmmm...
The Jews who lived then and stand there and
heard Him speak and who knew that religion
and culture inside out, since they were Jewish,
which is important, considering that Jesus was
a Jew, who specifically said that He came to
speak specifically to the Jews and so, would
have spoken in a way that would make sense
to them?
Or...
A guy who lives almost 2,000 years later, who
wishes to hand wave away whatever the passages
say that he doesn't like, as demonstrated above
and who, while demanding that something say
exactly what he demands that it says period,
then hypocritically references passages that
he claims prove his doctrine and yet, which
do not specifically say what he claims and who
has obviously zero understanding of the culture
and who makes it quote obvious that he doesn't
want any and so, thinks that it is the Godly
approach to ignore the times and settings
of the texts, which is required to promote
his doctrine?
Hmmm... Now which one should we choose???
Please! <chuckle>
>> to claim your father's authority, is to claim to
>> be standing there as if your father is and when
>> we are talking about God the Father, to claim
>> that one is standing there with the authority
>> of the Father, is to claim to be God Himself!
>
> All speculation and nothing based on what Jesus said.
No, it isn't speculation. It is a fact of the Jewish
way of life, whether you want to hear it or not!
You want to interpret His words as if He was
a 21st century Gentile speaking and He wasn't!
> He didn't resurrect himself, God did.
And yet, Jesus said that He had the power.
So sorry, you lose! :)
I think we're done here. You're not serious about
anything except promoting yourself, as is evidenced
above in what you responded with. Hand waving
away whatever you don't like, is not a rebuttal.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"You must learn to face the fact, always, that you
choose to do what you do, and that everything you
do affects not only you but others." - Holly Lisle
curtjester1
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:29 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> >On Nov 22, 4:15 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:19:00 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> >> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> >> > Actually in John 10:30-38, he denied the claim
> >> > by denying he was God to those who wanted
> >> > to accuse of being God and for Blasphemy.
>
> >> Actually, no, He didn't. He never denied it.
> >> He simply turned their own words against them.
>
> > He denied it with his rebuttal. He never said he 'was', did he?
>
> Jesus never said, "I am not God".
>
(false) accusation in the why, querical sense, because he was merely
saying he was "God's son." There is absolutley no reason to draw upon
the 82nd Psalm and introduce them as gods, in your explanation,
because there is no way he would want to equate them ("gods") to God.
It's the only way it can and does make sense.
> >> In fact, He also said...
>
> >> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you;
> >> Before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58
>
> > Yes and he definitely existed before Abraham.
> > And if they really knew the scriptures they
> > would understand he was created from Proverbs
> > chapter 8 as God's "earliest of achievements."
>
> Sorry, but that doesn't wash and nowhere does
> it say that "wisdom = Messiah".
>
And yet when people want to they will draw on all sorts of scriptures
to apply it to Jesus from the Hebrew Scriptures. Why would it have to
use the word, Messiah? Here is Proverbs 8:
The Proverbs
Chapter 8
8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 8:2
She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of
the paths.
8:3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming
in at the doors.
Even wisdom is personified at the beginning here, as wisdom without
God is not wisdom especially from the Bible.
8:4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
8:5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an
understanding heart.
8:6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my
lips shall be right things.
8:7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination
to my lips.
8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing
froward or perverse in them.
8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them
that find knowledge.
8:10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than
choice gold.
8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be
desired are not to be compared to it.
8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty
inventions.
8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and
the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
8:14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have
strength.
8:15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
Mere wisdom wouldn't have kings reign...it would have to be from a
heavenly personality.
8:16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
Ditto.
8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find
me.
8:18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and
righteousness.
8:19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue
than choice silver.
8:20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of
judgment: 8:21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit
substance; and I will fill their treasures.
Ditto.
8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his
works of old.
Jehovah possessed who? Wisdom? I don't think Jehovah was ever
without wisdom or a way??
8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the
earth was.
I would have to be Jesus, since wisdom would be eternal and always
with God, right?
8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were
no fountains abounding with water.
8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought
forth: 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass
upon the face of the depth: 8:28 When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 8:29 When he gave to
the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 8:30 Then I was by
him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him;
"I was daily his delight" God would have delight greatly in a created
Jesus, no? God wouldn't write something he had delight in himself
would he?
8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights
were with the sons of men.
Other angels eh?
8:32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are
they that keep my ways.
8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
8:34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates,
waiting at the posts of my doors.
8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the
LORD.
Sure sounds like those who would find life would find it through
Jesus, right? That would find favor with Jehovah, right?
8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they
that hate me love death.
Mere wisdom isn't something to sin against. Sinning against a
heavenly personality sure would.
> >> They then took up stones to stone Him with
> >> and the conversation in John 10, took place
> >> based on that. No one claims to be before
> >> Abraham, without claiming to be God and
> >> furthermore, what you are displaying here
> >> (no offense), is your ignorance of Jewish
> >> thought. What I mean is, that you have
> >> no understanding of what those words
> >> would have meant to those who heard them.
>
> > The Jews were ignorant of lots of things as Jesus
> > would point out repeatedly, especially to their
> > leaders, The Pharisees.
>
> I am speaking about your ignorance and claiming
> they all, the whole crowd of them got it wrong,
> is just you not wanting to deal with the facts
> and wanting to rewrite the thought to suit
> your own doctrine.
>
Of course they got it wrong. They found ways that others would find
in the scriptures that would deal with Messiah's arrival and all the
spirtual greatness of Messiah's arrival, and somehow because of their
position not want to deal with his invasion into their society. Of
course they would have been correct though, to stone anyone who
claimed to be other than the LORD GOD is ONE from the Ten
Commandments.
> >> And what did THE JEWS who heard Him speak
> >> say about what He said in John 10? Will you
> >> now listen to it and bow to what it really meant?
> >> Or will you still insist that you know more than
> >> those who heard it did and insist that you know
> >> more about their culture than they did?
>
> > One simply has to see that they wanted him killed.
> > They wanted him killed and conspired to do so
> > after that, no matter what they felt about him.
>
> You did not deal with what I said.
>
>
I don't have to deal with speculation. If your speculation were truly
important, Jesus would have made it a point of contention to be
included in the Scriptures, not some 'artifact' that one would use to
make a doctrine which BTW which is never spelled out...only thought of
as something to be 'read into'.
>
>
>
> >> The simple fact is, that you cannot separate
> >> the culture from the words and the facts is,
> >> that Jesus Himself stated that He came
> >> specifically to talk to the Jews and not to
> >> the Gentiles and certainly not to ignore
> >> all time, until you were born! :)
>
> >> John 10:31-33
>
> >> 31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
> >> 32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
> >> shewed you from my Father; for which of those works
> >> do ye stone me?
>
> > Notice he says works and there is nothing to do
> > with postion of usurping to be God.
>
> Cutting off the last verse is dishonest.
>
The last verse of chapter 10 I dealt with above...that's were Jesus
reminded them that he was, "God's Son", not God.
> >> 33) The Jews answered him, saying; For a good work
> >> we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because
> >> that THOU, being a man, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.
>
> > Their conjecture.
>
> Oh, so now you want to deal with it? But separated
> from the other two verses of course! And then,
> instead of dealing with it, you try to hand wave
> it away.
>
There is nothing to hand wave away. Jesus was on the scene and there
was nothing that he said that would usurp the being or title of God.
> The problem for you is that when you say that it's
> "their conjecture", you are admitting that they did
> indeed take His words as saying that He is God.
>
Their conjecture means exactly that. You are the one saying Jesus
said that. It's just not true, and definitely not verifiable.
> So while you want everyone to just believe you,
> as if you couldn't be wrong and want to place
> yourself on that pedestal, what this really boils
> down to, is their perception vs yours.
>
> So whom should we believe? Hmmm...
>
I use the Bible as a whole and I use the text as it is plainly given.
Sons of God are angels in Job 38:7 and they are bright morning stars
as well. Interesting how the Bible depicts Jesus as The Bright and
Morning Star in Rev. 22:16?
> The Jews who lived then and stand there and
> heard Him speak and who knew that religion
> and culture inside out, since they were Jewish,
> which is important, considering that Jesus was
> a Jew, who specifically said that He came to
> speak specifically to the Jews and so, would
> have spoken in a way that would make sense
> to them?
>
and wasn't the same Jews that falsely accused him of sedition that
would lead to his death?
> Or...
>
> A guy who lives almost 2,000 years later, who
> wishes to hand wave away whatever the passages
> say that he doesn't like, as demonstrated above
> and who, while demanding that something say
> exactly what he demands that it says period,
> then hypocritically references passages that
> he claims prove his doctrine and yet, which
> do not specifically say what he claims and who
> has obviously zero understanding of the culture
> and who makes it quote obvious that he doesn't
> want any and so, thinks that it is the Godly
> approach to ignore the times and settings
> of the texts, which is required to promote
> his doctrine?
>
> Hmmm... Now which one should we choose???
>
Sounds like no one can interpret the Bible but who? I (II?)Tim 3:16
> Please! <chuckle>
>
> >> to claim your father's authority, is to claim to
> >> be standing there as if your father is and when
> >> we are talking about God the Father, to claim
> >> that one is standing there with the authority
> >> of the Father, is to claim to be God Himself!
>
> > All speculation and nothing based on what Jesus said.
>
> No, it isn't speculation. It is a fact of the Jewish
> way of life, whether you want to hear it or not!
>
Then why not have the disciples be God in John 17 when Jesus described
them as being as "one" just as in John 10:30? What you say sounds
like it could be a Father like Son type of business dealing with
reputation. Of course we know that all siblings don't turn out to be
the way parents wish them to turn out..some being depicted in the
scriptures as "renegade sons" who had to be dealt with harshly.
> You want to interpret His words as if He was
> a 21st century Gentile speaking and He wasn't!
>
I think God inspired the writers to depict him as he was, instead of
introducing all these specuated ancillary details.
> > He didn't resurrect himself, God did.
>
> And yet, Jesus said that He had the power.
>
> So sorry, you lose! :)
>
Did Jesus say he ever resurrected himself? Didn't the Scriptures say
in Acts 2 that God resurrected him?
> I think we're done here. You're not serious about
> anything except promoting yourself, as is evidenced
> above in what you responded with. Hand waving
> away whatever you don't like, is not a rebuttal.
>
Oh, I think you don't quite have that authority. I view this as a
mere blackboard, and try to point out what the Bible really says. I
don't need to have a title and I am not a "hired man"....(John 10). I
am here to merely discuss and toss a few seeds. Salvation belongs to
how God through Jesus decides salvation, and not through a hired man
who thinks he gives it. (It's a wrong doctrine to think they have it
when it's God and Jesus who decide that). So, simply you can just
refuse to answer my post, instead of pontificatting on.
CJ
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> "You must learn to face the fact, always, that you
> choose to do what you do, and that everything you
> do affects not only you but others." - Holly Lisle- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:46:31 -0800 (PST), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
important. Being verifiably seen is the most important.
> I once tried to make a case of the man Jesus dying, and the divine Jesus rising.
> And I got shot down quickly by a priest. So liturgically speaking, the man
> died and rose and then ascended.
>
I could give priests a lot to worry about with a lot of Biblical
implications....ha. I don't worry about what anyone says to be
honest. He passed God's test as far as I am concerned which would
allow us to pass the test that Adam could't find the wherewithal to
do. And then he went on to heaven and was able to dispense the great
Revelation and give us further meaning of life's unravelings. What an
accomplishment, what a deal!
> >> That's what the cross was about: "If it be your will, spare me this cup, not my
> >> will but your, almighty Father." And resurrection is our reward also along with
> >> ascension to the Father.
> >If we accept the terms of the resurrection.
>
> Isn't that the same as saying "hello, satan" if we don't.
>
Satan is 'the ruler of the world". If I get started on him and how he
affects earthly affairs and how he can dupe mankind, I would be here
for way too long....
CJ
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
duke
wrote:
Yet it is important, for it's the promise of Jesus that dying in the spirit of
God and full obedience to the Father gives us physical resurrection and
ascension to the Father.
>> I once tried to make a case of the man Jesus dying, and the divine Jesus rising.
>> And I got shot down quickly by a priest. � So liturgically speaking, the man
>> died and rose and then ascended.
>I could give priests a lot to worry about with a lot of Biblical
>implications....ha.
Oh, they have a lot more scripture knowledge than you have.
> I don't worry about what anyone says to be
>honest. He passed God's test as far as I am concerned which would
>allow us to pass the test that Adam could't find the wherewithal to
>do. And then he went on to heaven and was able to dispense the great
>Revelation and give us further meaning of life's unravelings. What an
>accomplishment, what a deal!
It sounds like you're specifically stating that you believe that Jesus is not
God become man. Yes, he "passed the test", and he is showing us how to pass it
also. It's called full and complete obedience to the Father. "If it be your
will, spare me this cup, not my will but yours". However, we can't be perfect
like Jesus as he is the only man that never sinned. So, as our experienced
judge, he will evaluate our attempts and decide accordingly
>> >> That's what the cross was about: �"If it be your will, spare me this cup, not my
>> >> will but your, almighty Father." �And resurrection is our reward also along with
>> >> ascension to the Father.
>> >If we accept the terms of the resurrection.
>> Isn't that the same as saying "hello, satan" if we don't.
>Satan is 'the ruler of the world". If I get started on him and how he
>affects earthly affairs and how he can dupe mankind, I would be here
>for way too long....
If you don't follow Jesus in obedience to the Father, you're going to be.
curtjester1
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:53:23 -0800 (PST), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
spirit one. Jesus showed definitely by having a ressurection
performed that a physical ressurection to be possible and to many
would foreshadow what will take place. Then there's the resurrection
to heaven that changes in the twinkling of an eye which goes into what
kind of body that would enter heaven. The important thing is to be a
resurrected one.
> >> I once tried to make a case of the man Jesus dying, and the divine Jesus rising.
> >> And I got shot down quickly by a priest. So liturgically speaking, the man
> >> died and rose and then ascended.
> >I could give priests a lot to worry about with a lot of Biblical
> >implications....ha.
>
> Oh, they have a lot more scripture knowledge than you have.
>
All I could care is what God thinks of as important knowledge that I
need and can use. I don't need to specifically attack people unless I
think there actions are not in alignment and helping to lead others to
eternal life. IOW, I could care less what puny, sickly, sinful,
earthly men, could possible think of me. I think of the Illuminati
and much of the Catholic priesthood as being in cahoots. Rev. 17 is
my illuminator for that.
> > I don't worry about what anyone says to be
> >honest. He passed God's test as far as I am concerned which would
> >allow us to pass the test that Adam could't find the wherewithal to
> >do. And then he went on to heaven and was able to dispense the great
> >Revelation and give us further meaning of life's unravelings. What an
> >accomplishment, what a deal!
>
> It sounds like you're specifically stating that you believe that Jesus is not
> God become man. Yes, he "passed the test", and he is showing us how to pass it
> also. It's called full and complete obedience to the Father. "If it be your
> will, spare me this cup, not my will but yours". However, we can't be perfect
> like Jesus as he is the only man that never sinned. So, as our experienced
> judge, he will evaluate our attempts and decide accordingly
>
Jesus has never been God. That's pretty specific. It wouldn't be a
worthy test to have God pass a test. It would be worthy for one of
his creation that has free will to pass that test. Yes, by his worthy
obedience he will be a great judge. Of course he will have help with
those who will rule the earth with him...Rev. 1: 5 or 6
> >> >> That's what the cross was about: "If it be your will, spare me this cup, not my
> >> >> will but your, almighty Father." And resurrection is our reward also along with
> >> >> ascension to the Father.
> >> >If we accept the terms of the resurrection.
> >> Isn't that the same as saying "hello, satan" if we don't.
> >Satan is 'the ruler of the world". If I get started on him and how he
> >affects earthly affairs and how he can dupe mankind, I would be here
> >for way too long....
>
> If you don't follow Jesus in obedience to the Father, you're going to be.
>
I make a concerted effort, and remaining "no part of the world" is
always on my mind.
CJ
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
OB...@aol.com
is Jesus Christ .
Harold Camping studied the Bible for 50 years intensively and yet he
doesn't know who is Jesus Christ.He confused him with God the Father
who is invisible,always immortal and who is not a man.
curtjester1
Agreed, and one must always be aware of 'the learned' such as in II
Tim. 3:7. People who spend a lot of time in a holy book are surely
going to know a lot of information and tidbits, but that isn't going
to necessarily equate to a "knowledge of truth." They can be taught
wrongly in a doctrine such as the trinity and with their livelihood in
a church still demonstrate good speaking abilities with reservoirs of
information. One must ask still is it truthful with correctness, and
is it important from God's purpose and standpoint of necessary
knowledge?
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of
God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such
turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive
silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist
the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith....
I believe when the upper echelons of 'Christianity' (after the
apostasy II Thess. 2?) was so infused with the echelons of political
power, it probably was never a good idea that doctines would have been
questioned, and formed a rigid tradition. The elevation of the Son
and instantaneous salvation was something they wanted. The
politically powerful could deem themselves saved and 'correct' with
those of a religious nature that were of high echelon to do their
bidding as well as finding easy followers that would have an easy, 'no
fault' insurance policy of 'being saved'.
CJ
OB...@aol.com
You can see there a clear difference that God and Jesus are two
different beings !
duke
One God in 3 persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
1=1+1+1.
OB...@aol.com
...
You don't even understand that I am exactly the christian as I believe
in who is Jesus the right way.
Call Harold Camping on his Open Forum program even he will tell you
that Roman Catholic religion is false.