Patrick Jane Forums

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY with BLADERUNNER, LORI BOLINGER and BILLY EVMUR => *Bladerunner | Theology | Words of God => Topic started by: Jon Wood on January 07, 2020, 09:45:55 pm

Title: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Jon Wood on January 07, 2020, 09:45:55 pm
Iíll get it out of the way so you can read something else if you have no interest. This is the ďFully God and Fully ManĒ topic. Well... at its heart, this is that. You might wonder what might be different, this is old stomping ground for many of you.

I want to play with the concept in a way that may have been done before, but definitely isnít the standard back and forth that goes on day in and day out for people like us. What if we approach this by getting the hard part out of the way? It means exactly what you think that means. What if we work from the premise being granted that Jesus is God? Now, what sort of topics and biblical passages do we get into in now trying to prove to someone that he was genuinely a man? Fun, no?

Iíll probably give you more backstory at a later time. Iíll give this some time to see where it goes for a little while. Iíll be checking  out your initial thoughts from the background for at least a little while. Maybe we can come up with some new crazy theory or something, of course, maybe iím The only one that even likes the idea, lol.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 07, 2020, 11:41:34 pm
Iíll get it out of the way so you can read something else if you have no interest. This is the ďFully God and Fully ManĒ topic. Well... at its heart, this is that. You might wonder what might be different, this is old stomping ground for many of you.

I want to play with the concept in a way that may have been done before, but definitely isnít the standard back and forth that goes on day in and day out for people like us. What if we approach this by getting the hard part out of the way? It means exactly what you think that means. What if we work from the premise being granted that Jesus is God? Now, what sort of topics and biblical passages do we get into in now trying to prove to someone that he was genuinely a man? Fun, no?

Iíll probably give you more backstory at a later time. Iíll give this some time to see where it goes for a little while. Iíll be checking  out your initial thoughts from the background for at least a little while. Maybe we can come up with some new crazy theory or something, of course, maybe iím The only one that even likes the idea, lol.
Sounds good Jon, thank you for posting here and offering this for discussion. In my mind I picture Jesus as a man but with the KNOWLEDGE of God. Yes, He pooped and had bad teeth but He had the Wisdom and the words of God while in the earth. He performed many miracles with many witnesses. Could Jesus the man have called down lightning, I say yes. Could He smite someone and send them to hell? I believe if Jesus CHOSE to He could, and I understand the whole concept of "God cannot contradict Himself". Very interesting Jon and I hope we get lots of participation on this thread.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 08, 2020, 10:21:17 am
Jon Wood Rocks
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 08, 2020, 11:59:19 am
Sounds good Jon, thank you for posting here and offering this for discussion. In my mind I picture Jesus as a man but with the KNOWLEDGE of God. Yes, He pooped and had bad teeth but He had the Wisdom and the words of God while in the earth. He performed many miracles with many witnesses. Could Jesus the man have called down lightning, I say yes. Could He smite someone and send them to hell? I believe if Jesus CHOSE to He could, and I understand the whole concept of "God cannot contradict Himself". Very interesting Jon and I hope we get lots of participation on this thread.
I find it interesting already that it seems difficult to not focus toward deity. It seems so deeply rooted in us that deity is the concept we are looking to confirm or deny. 

I donít think Iím consciously trying to bring up the ďwhat degree of omnipotenceĒ thing. Iím trying to work against the grain to see if we notice anything different.

Think of this method of approach, at least for a little while, as you would trying to show the deity of Jesus to someone who only accepts his humanity (we see it everyday). Now switch ďhumanityĒ and ďdeityĒ, the guy currently only believes that Jesus is God. Where might their concerns be? Even if they donít know how to express them?
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 08, 2020, 12:12:37 pm
Sounds good Jon, thank you for posting here and offering this for discussion. In my mind I picture Jesus as a man but with the KNOWLEDGE of God. Yes, He pooped and had bad teeth but He had the Wisdom and the words of God while in the earth. He performed many miracles with many witnesses. Could Jesus the man have called down lightning, I say yes. Could He smite someone and send them to hell? I believe if Jesus CHOSE to He could, and I understand the whole concept of "God cannot contradict Himself". Very interesting Jon and I hope we get lots of participation on this thread.
I find it interesting already that it seems difficult to not focus toward deity. It seems so deeply rooted in us that deity is the concept we are looking to confirm or deny. 

I donít think Iím consciously trying to bring up the ďwhat degree of omnipotenceĒ thing. Iím trying to work against the grain to see if we notice anything different.

Think of this method of approach, at least for a little while, as you would trying to show the deity of Jesus to someone who only accepts his humanity (we see it everyday). Now switch ďhumanityĒ and ďdeityĒ, the guy currently only believes that Jesus is God. Where might their concerns be? Even if they donít know how to express them?
My concerns would be - did Jesus suffer as a human man? Meaning, did He deal with sore feet or suffer from a deep cut? We know that He did, making Him fully human indeed. Again, did Jesus experience the same things I experience and the answer is yes, He did.

Thoughts, on the other hand, are where the differences lay. Did Jesus, as a man being fully human, experience doubt in faith or any other human emotion? Yes, He wept. At the same time and I mean at exactly the same time as He was a man weeping, could Jesus have called on His divinity to change the course of history or change the course of time. I believe He could. We can only imagine what it might be like to be man and God Almighty at the same time.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 08, 2020, 01:13:47 pm
My concerns would be - did Jesus suffer as a human man? Meaning, did He deal with sore feet or suffer from a deep cut? We know that He did, making Him fully human indeed. Again, did Jesus experience the same things I experience and the answer is yes, He did.

Thoughts, on the other hand, are where the differences lay. Did Jesus, as a man being fully human, experience doubt in faith or any other human emotion? Yes, He wept. At the same time and I mean at exactly the same time as He was a man weeping, could Jesus have called on His divinity to change the course of history or change the course of time. I believe He could. We can only imagine what it might be like to be man and God Almighty at the same time.
Why would the ability to experience pain be a factor in a full expression of humanity? If God has emotions such as love and anger, even prior to walking the Earth as Jesus, surely he was at least capable of feeling pain to some degree, why would the addition of physical pain require being fully human? Allowing the burden of physical pain to be an inconvenience for such a small time as compared to an eternity that He had no doubts about (because he brought it about) is a small price to pay for God. A price yes, pain yes, Iím not so sure it required humanity other than form. If emotions made Jesus a man, then Jesus was a man before he was born.

*See, weird huh? Now, itís going to be hard for me to be consistent at this and I wonít have an explanation for everything, because itís a relatively new idea Iíve sunk only a small amount of thought in prior to posting, on top of it maybe being impossible to apply in certain situations. Lol, my reply was kinda cringey to write, but it was kinda fun.*
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 08, 2020, 10:25:13 pm
My concerns would be - did Jesus suffer as a human man? Meaning, did He deal with sore feet or suffer from a deep cut? We know that He did, making Him fully human indeed. Again, did Jesus experience the same things I experience and the answer is yes, He did.

Thoughts, on the other hand, are where the differences lay. Did Jesus, as a man being fully human, experience doubt in faith or any other human emotion? Yes, He wept. At the same time and I mean at exactly the same time as He was a man weeping, could Jesus have called on His divinity to change the course of history or change the course of time. I believe He could. We can only imagine what it might be like to be man and God Almighty at the same time.
Why would the ability to experience pain be a factor in a full expression of humanity? If God has emotions such as love and anger, even prior to walking the Earth as Jesus, surely he was at least capable of feeling pain to some degree, why would the addition of physical pain require being fully human? Allowing the burden of physical pain to be an inconvenience for such a small time as compared to an eternity that He had no doubts about (because he brought it about) is a small price to pay for God. A price yes, pain yes, Iím not so sure it required humanity other than form. If emotions made Jesus a man, then Jesus was a man before he was born.

*See, weird huh? Now, itís going to be hard for me to be consistent at this and I wonít have an explanation for everything, because itís a relatively new idea Iíve sunk only a small amount of thought in prior to posting, on top of it maybe being impossible to apply in certain situations. Lol, my reply was kinda cringey to write, but it was kinda fun.*
Pain and suffering is only experienced in the earth as an earthly being, whether animal or human. The pain and the suffering that Jesus experienced is real and He experienced every human experience, emotional or not. Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh in the earth as a man and God as a man. I can make perfect sense of this as much as anyone possibly can with discernment from the Holy Spirit and the information in God's words.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 09, 2020, 09:25:55 am
Pain and suffering is only experienced in the earth as an earthly being, whether animal or human. The pain and the suffering that Jesus experienced is real and He experienced every human experience, emotional or not. Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh in the earth as a man and God as a man. I can make perfect sense of this as much as anyone possibly can with discernment from the Holy Spirit and the information in God's words.
Now, weíve hit a point that Iím not sure that I understand how Jesus could be fully God in his moments of doubt. Things like that are what this whole idea is about really.

Since you hold to Him being both fully God and Fully man, please explain what you can from both perspectives. Itís something Iíve never understood.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 09, 2020, 06:26:03 pm

You said:"What if we work from the premise being granted that Jesus is God? Now, what sort of topics and biblical passages do we get into in now trying to prove to someone that he was genuinely a man? Fun, no?"

What a topic....One could go bananas thinking about this one topic...

To answer your question: He was born of woman, therefore HE is "Fully" Human, a man.

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 09, 2020, 06:28:38 pm

You said:"What if we work from the premise being granted that Jesus is God? Now, what sort of topics and biblical passages do we get into in now trying to prove to someone that he was genuinely a man? Fun, no?"

What a topic....One could go bananas thinking about this one topic...

To answer your question: He was born of woman, therefore HE is "Fully" Human, a man.

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 09, 2020, 06:53:44 pm
Pain and suffering is only experienced in the earth as an earthly being, whether animal or human. The pain and the suffering that Jesus experienced is real and He experienced every human experience, emotional or not. Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh in the earth as a man and God as a man. I can make perfect sense of this as much as anyone possibly can with discernment from the Holy Spirit and the information in God's words.
Now, weíve hit a point that Iím not sure that I understand how Jesus could be fully God in his moments of doubt. Things like that are what this whole idea is about really.

Since you hold to Him being both fully God and Fully man, please explain what you can from both perspectives. Itís something Iíve never understood.
I used to say and think that Jesus Christ was diminished or made lower concerning His Divinity WHILE IN THE EARTH AS A MAN. This seems to be what many people believe as well.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 09, 2020, 07:23:37 pm
Pain and suffering is only experienced in the earth as an earthly being, whether animal or human. The pain and the suffering that Jesus experienced is real and He experienced every human experience, emotional or not. Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh in the earth as a man and God as a man. I can make perfect sense of this as much as anyone possibly can with discernment from the Holy Spirit and the information in God's words.
Now, weíve hit a point that Iím not sure that I understand how Jesus could be fully God in his moments of doubt. Things like that are what this whole idea is about really.

Since you hold to Him being both fully God and Fully man, please explain what you can from both perspectives. Itís something Iíve never understood.
I used to say and think that Jesus Christ was diminished or made lower concerning His Divinity WHILE IN THE EARTH AS A MAN. This seems to be what many people believe as well.

Jesus was not diminished while He was on earth....As He was a Man he is already in the image of GOD...... It is apparent throughout the scriptures that Jesus was unaware who HE was..;..Yes, He could have called down the armies of Heaven to stop the crucifixion but He did not.....At an early AGE, He knew who His father was....and He through John and others preaches that His father is the only GOD........We see this changes as after he is resurrected and knows who He is actually is....On the Cross, He did not know because of the Asking"Why have you forsaken me" and yet, in the end did know.

Fully Man,,,,because of His Birth of WOMAN and Fully GOD because He was the seed of Himself..........

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 09, 2020, 08:36:01 pm
I used to say and think that Jesus Christ was diminished or made lower concerning His Divinity WHILE IN THE EARTH AS A MAN. This seems to be what many people believe as well.

See, I honestly think itís hard to get to this kind of talking point in the discussion from the usual way of approaching the deity thing. Somewhere, I think it gets mistakenly read as being antagonistic if I were to start off by going ďIf Jesus was God, then Explain x,y,zĒ. Granted, some people are just antagonistic lol, but itís hard to have a discussion when youíre always trying to go for the throat.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 09, 2020, 08:56:59 pm

What a topic....One could go bananas thinking about this one topic...

To answer your question: He was born of woman, therefore HE is "Fully" Human, a man.

Blade
It can definitely make you think, and maybe even overthink. It comes from something thatís been in the back of my mind for 10 years or more, a part that I never had any idea how to work on by myself actually because I didnít know what it was. Iíll take a break from the backstory for a minute.

Typically if we go the direction of the born of woman thing... we get diverted into something like ďwell, at best he was a hybrid thenĒ and if not that direction then youíll usually explain the original sin angle, which Iím sure is a planned diversion from the guy who doesnít believe in deity in a standard conversation come to think of it lol.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 09, 2020, 09:13:57 pm

Jesus was not diminished while He was on earth....As He was a Man he is already in the image of GOD...... It is apparent throughout the scriptures that Jesus was unaware who HE was..;..Yes, He could have called down the armies of Heaven to stop the crucifixion but He did not.....At an early AGE, He knew who His father was....and He through John and others preaches that His father is the only GOD........We see this changes as after he is resurrected and knows who He is actually is....On the Cross, He did not know because of the Asking"Why have you forsaken me" and yet, in the end did know.

Fully Man,,,,because of His Birth of WOMAN and Fully GOD because He was the seed of Himself..........

Blade
I would have never guessed in a million years that you would say something like this. Itís the only way I could get the deity and humanity of Jesus to work in my head together back then.

To me, if Jesus was God, in any capacity, I donít think that Jesus could have known it while he walked the Earth as a man. Any other suggestion I have ever tried, made the concept just feel completely...wrong.

Iíve got to take a break because the subject can definitely scramble your brain, but thanks for joining in.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 09, 2020, 09:15:16 pm

What a topic....One could go bananas thinking about this one topic...

To answer your question: He was born of woman, therefore HE is "Fully" Human, a man.

Blade
It can definitely make you think, and maybe even overthink. It comes from something thatís been in the back of my mind for 10 years or more, a part that I never had any idea how to work on by myself actually because I didnít know what it was. Iíll take a break from the backstory for a minute.

Typically if we go the direction of the born of woman thing... we get diverted into something like ďwell, at best he was a hybrid thenĒ and if not that direction then youíll usually explain the original sin angle, which Iím sure is a planned diversion from the guy who doesnít believe in deity in a standard conversation come to think of it lol.

I think your research may be lacking a little. lol   (see blue above)

I believe in the deity of Christ.

Before we get started....Do you believe you are fully Human????

Yet, you have the Holy Spirit within you, who is fully GOD........

Are you not Fully Man.???.....Not a hybrid??

If we were able to test the DNA of  Jesus, what do you think we would find.??..All of Man and none of GOD (simply because we do not have GOD's DNA)...

Yet, if something was included or changed, we would assign that anomaly to GOD.....??

I think you will find I go in different directions than standard.

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 09, 2020, 09:39:24 pm

It can definitely make you think, and maybe even overthink. It comes from something thatís been in the back of my mind for 10 years or more, a part that I never had any idea how to work on by myself actually because I didnít know what it was. Iíll take a break from the backstory for a minute.

Typically if we go the direction of the born of woman thing... we get diverted into something like ďwell, at best he was a hybrid thenĒ and if not that direction then youíll usually explain the original sin angle, which Iím sure is a planned diversion from the guy who doesnít believe in deity in a standard conversation come to think of it lol.

I think your research may be lacking a little. lol   (see blue above)

I believe in the deity of Christ.

Before we get started....Do you believe you are fully Human????

Yet, you have the Holy Spirit within you, who is fully GOD........

Are you not Fully Man.???.....Not a hybrid??

If we were able to test the DNA of  Jesus, what do you think we would find.??..All of Man and none of GOD (simply because we do not have GOD's DNA)...

Yet, if something was included or changed, we would assign that anomaly to GOD.....??

I think you will find I go in different directions than standard.

Blade
Lol, I think we missed each other somewhere. I am not saying that YOU donít believe in the deity of Jesus in the blue portion. Somebody, (me in this case) that does not believe in the deity of Jesus and wants to approach the subject like I started by accepting the premise that He is God, and now the other side (yours) is to show to him (me) Jesus is a man. That is the premise I wanted to experiment with to see what might be different in the deity talk, but I havenít been that great in the follow through.

I think youíve missed somewhere that I havenít considered myself exactly a Christian in quite some time, the reasons are more complicated than just the deity thing and I hope it doesnít change how you think of me. Iíve considered you a friend for a long time and was sure you knew by now. If we can get past that I definitely welcome more discussion.

To your points on the hybrid note, I must say that I had not considered that before and I think it very interesting.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 09, 2020, 09:55:22 pm
Jon get your ass back here.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 09, 2020, 10:00:01 pm
Jon get your ass back here.
Yes?
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 10, 2020, 03:18:19 am
Jon get your ass back here.
Yes?
LOL, kiddin' bro - why don't you believe in God and Jesus Christ? What keeps you from believing? ✝🕊⛪🙏🛐
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 10, 2020, 05:30:20 am
Jon get your ass back here.
Yes?
LOL, kiddin' bro - why don't you believe in God and Jesus Christ? What keeps you from believing? ✝🕊⛪🙏🛐
Hmm, itís not that I donít believe in God or Jesus. Iíve almost always been theistic and believed in God as being the ultimate Father of all. That hasnít changed. Jesus, I also believe in and am pretty sure had at least some kind of deeper understanding of God more than most anyone else. Itís not as simple as not believing in them. More or less, itís a questioning of my own sincerity when I was pretty sure I was a Christian, added with a few things that I just donít take as a given that in general, most Christians do. Maybe iíll get more into this later, but probably not much in this thread. Thanks PJ. iím Not sure how you didnít know either lol, I talk to you more than most everyone else and thought it had come up by now
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 10, 2020, 10:40:08 am

It can definitely make you think, and maybe even overthink. It comes from something thatís been in the back of my mind for 10 years or more, a part that I never had any idea how to work on by myself actually because I didnít know what it was. Iíll take a break from the backstory for a minute.

Typically if we go the direction of the born of woman thing... we get diverted into something like ďwell, at best he was a hybrid thenĒ and if not that direction then youíll usually explain the original sin angle, which Iím sure is a planned diversion from the guy who doesnít believe in deity in a standard conversation come to think of it lol.

I think your research may be lacking a little. lol   (see blue above)

I believe in the deity of Christ.

Before we get started....Do you believe you are fully Human????

Yet, you have the Holy Spirit within you, who is fully GOD........

Are you not Fully Man.???.....Not a hybrid??

If we were able to test the DNA of  Jesus, what do you think we would find.??..All of Man and none of GOD (simply because we do not have GOD's DNA)...

Yet, if something was included or changed, we would assign that anomaly to GOD.....??

I think you will find I go in different directions than standard.

Blade
Lol, I think we missed each other somewhere. I am not saying that YOU donít believe in the deity of Jesus in the blue portion. Somebody, (me in this case) that does not believe in the deity of Jesus and wants to approach the subject like I started by accepting the premise that He is God, and now the other side (yours) is to show to him (me) Jesus is a man. That is the premise I wanted to experiment with to see what might be different in the deity talk, but I havenít been that great in the follow through.

I think youíve missed somewhere that I havenít considered myself exactly a Christian in quite some time, the reasons are more complicated than just the deity thing and I hope it doesnít change how you think of me. Iíve considered you a friend for a long time and was sure you knew by now. If we can get past that I definitely welcome more discussion.

To your points on the hybrid note, I must say that I had not considered that before and I think it very interesting.

JON, OF course we can continue to be friends....I will try to answer what questions you have on your mind and I promise not to judge you,..That is not my job..

As you say you are not a Christian! could I get your info that helps me know where your coming from....Like the Whats & WHY, do you believe in something else...May be a stumbling point that keeps you out of Christianity or many several points


Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 10, 2020, 10:49:39 am

JON, OF course we can continue to be friends....I will try to answer what questions you have on your mind and I promise not to judge you,..That is not my job...

Iím glad Blade. If I think of anything to ask immediately, Iíll let you know. Iím pretty engrossed in an article Dave L shared on TF about the Westminster Assembly. Itís got a pretty significant amount of my attention for the moment.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 10, 2020, 11:04:25 am

As you say you are not a Christian! could I get your info that helps me know where your coming from....Like the Whats & WHY, do you believe in something else...May be a stumbling point that keeps you out of Christianity or many several points


Blade
I gave a fairly good general description of where I come from to PJ a comment or two, back. A good portion of it is somewhere, I feel I just stopped being sincere. Some of it is I feel that there are fundamental things that a majority of Christians accept as fact, for one reason or another that I just canít for that reason.

To be honest, I read the Bible more as a general theist than I ever did when I was a Christian, and itís still not that overwhelmingly often, more as a ďI didnít know it said that, what a good point to bring up in this discussionĒ
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: truthjourney on January 10, 2020, 11:05:44 am
Jon, it doesn't change the way I think of you. I just want you to know that.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 10, 2020, 11:07:21 am

JON, OF course we can continue to be friends....I will try to answer what questions you have on your mind and I promise not to judge you,..That is not my job...

Iím glad Blade. If I think of anything to ask immediately, Iíll let you know. Iím pretty engrossed in an article Dave L shared on TF about the Westminster Assembly. Itís got a pretty significant amount of my attention for the moment.

OK, Let me say this,,,, Jon scratch what I ask of you as I have found you already posted it in the another post.  Thanks.

I have found that one should take stock of one's position with GOD everyday and take nothing for granted....I think this is perseverance as commanded by GOD....

Someone once told me the Bible was authored in terms that a child could understand and it was also authored in terms that one could dive into and get as deep as they want to......The question is, how deep to you want to go...Whatever it is, I'll try to go there with you if that is ok. One suggestion while you read the WA article.

.Of course, there is always Atheism and being an Agnostic BUT most everyone falls within two disciplines as a believer....


These ar Amillenialism and Pre-Millennialism.   Dave unfortunately (in my opinion) is in the wrong camp of Amillenialism and every thing He gives you will lead to that theology.  I on the other hand can supply the Pre-Millennialism theology.  Be assured, One takes you away from GOD and the Other takes to GOD.   In the end it is your decision to be made.

Blade



Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 10, 2020, 11:13:23 am
Jon, it doesn't change the way I think of you. I just want you to know that.
Thank you TJ, that means a lot to me :)
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 10, 2020, 11:31:30 am
Jon, it doesn't change the way I think of you. I just want you to know that.
Thank you TJ, that means a lot to me :)
Me either Jon, I love you just the same. I don't love Christians "more" than agnostics or anyone else. I'm just curious because I can't NOT believe.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 10, 2020, 11:35:47 am
Jon, it doesn't change the way I think of you. I just want you to know that.
Thank you TJ, that means a lot to me :)
Me either Jon, I love you just the same. I don't love Christians "more" than agnostics or anyone else. I'm just curious because I can't NOT believe.
I know bro, plus you have to like me anyway, Iím a subscriber lol.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 10, 2020, 11:46:11 am


OK, Let me say this,,,, Jon scratch what I ask of you as I have found you already posted it in the another post.  Thanks.

I have found that one should take stock of one's position with GOD everyday and take nothing for granted....I think this is perseverance as commanded by GOD....

Someone once told me the Bible was authored in terms that a child could understand and it was also authored in terms that one could dive into and get as deep as they want to......The question is, how deep to you want to go...Whatever it is, I'll try to go there with you if that is ok. One suggestion while you read the WA article.

.Of course, there is always Atheism and being an Agnostic BUT most everyone falls within two disciplines as a believer....


These ar Amillenialism and Pre-Millennialism.   Dave unfortunately (in my opinion) is in the wrong camp of Amillenialism and every thing He gives you will lead to that theology.  I on the other hand can supply the Pre-Millennialism theology.  Be assured, One takes you away from GOD and the Other takes to GOD.   In the end it is your decision to be made.

Blade



Blade
Iíll definitely keep you in mind if I find anything in that deeper category I might want to explore in the future.

Lol, I actually wanted to look into the creeds because Dave mentions them so much. I wanted to know what was actually said in the ecumenical councils that decided on their general acceptance to see if there was any solid logical reasoning that could be reviewed today. So far his article produces nada in the valid reasoning department and is more commentary than anything. Though, it has provided names of attendees that I could read more in detail about when I want, so thatís cool.

I never really got much into the End times prophecy stuff. I might look into the ďAĒ and ďPremillennialismĒ thing at some point though
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 10, 2020, 03:57:39 pm


OK, Let me say this,,,, Jon scratch what I ask of you as I have found you already posted it in the another post.  Thanks.

I have found that one should take stock of one's position with GOD everyday and take nothing for granted....I think this is perseverance as commanded by GOD....

Someone once told me the Bible was authored in terms that a child could understand and it was also authored in terms that one could dive into and get as deep as they want to......The question is, how deep to you want to go...Whatever it is, I'll try to go there with you if that is ok. One suggestion while you read the WA article.

.Of course, there is always Atheism and being an Agnostic BUT most everyone falls within two disciplines as a believer....


These ar Amillenialism and Pre-Millennialism.   Dave unfortunately (in my opinion) is in the wrong camp of Amillenialism and every thing He gives you will lead to that theology.  I on the other hand can supply the Pre-Millennialism theology.  Be assured, One takes you away from GOD and the Other takes to GOD.   In the end it is your decision to be made.

Blade



Blade
Iíll definitely keep you in mind if I find anything in that deeper category I might want to explore in the future.

Lol, I actually wanted to look into the creeds because Dave mentions them so much. I wanted to know what was actually said in the ecumenical councils that decided on their general acceptance to see if there was any solid logical reasoning that could be reviewed today. So far his article produces nada in the valid reasoning department and is more commentary than anything. Though, it has provided names of attendees that I could read more in detail about when I want, so thatís cool.

I never really got much into the End times prophecy stuff. I might look into the ďAĒ and ďPremillennialismĒ thing at some point though

Ok, will wait until you are ready just simply let me know,,.,,

OH, before I go, you click on forums and scroll down to the Holy Bible...I have placed some topics you might find interesting and I have tried to include documentation as well.......

Have a Blessed day my Friend.,...

Blade

Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Ted T. on January 11, 2020, 03:55:22 pm
Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do.

Now, weíve hit a point that Iím not sure that I understand how Jesus could be fully God in his moments of doubt.
I suspect that this moment of doubt you both reference is His cry from the cross: Eli, eli, Ďă∑zaḇ∑tā∑nÓ lā∑māh; that is:   My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?

Christ on the cross was aware that the onlookers saw Him as defeated so He quoted the first line of Ps 22. No psalm had a number at that time so to reference a particular psalm one just quoted the first line. But the audience would know the whole psalm by heart and would recognize His message was that appearances were deceiving and He was in fact victorious as per the ending: 31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that HE HATH DONE IT.

Then there is also the verses about the garden incident: Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." which many think He meant to avoid the cross out of fear or whatever.

I find the suggestion that He feared for His life in the garden, that He was under so much pressure He thought maybe He was to die in the garden and not on the cross. Death in the garden was the cup He wished to have taken away (but not His will but the Father's be done) so He could get to the cross.

Thus I humbly reject His time of doubt as probable since it is not necessary to anything and is explained quite easily as His faith in the plan.

Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Ted T. on January 11, 2020, 06:23:44 pm
Somebody, (me in this case) that does not believe in the deity of Jesus and wants to approach the subject like I started by accepting the premise that He is God...

 Please consider that the nature of GOD is love. IF GOD is not Triune, ie a unified singularity but only a singularity, who did HE love before creation? GOD was loving but there is no one to love. Can love exist without an object of that affection?? If GOD is not a Trinity then I presume we must believe love can exist with no object for that love but I find that to be very hard to accept, much harder than accepting that the verses that CAN BE interpreted as referring to a divine Trinity are telling that truth. 

Since the DNA of GOD was mentioned, I will say that the DNA of GOD is HIS Divine attributes, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence etc.  Any one exhibiting these attributes is Divine just as anyone exhibiting dog dna is a dog not a cat.

But the perfection of the Divine Attributes is such that, if there are three people with these divine attributes, they do not make three GODs but form a unity, an echad, of divinity such that ONE GOD of three Divine persons is accurate while three god's is not.

Three omnipotent people do not make three omnipotents but ONE omnipotent due to the nature of the unifying perfection of omnipotence.

Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 11, 2020, 11:44:04 pm

I suspect that this moment of doubt you both reference is His cry from the cross: Eli, eli, Ďă∑zaḇ∑tā∑nÓ lā∑māh; that is:   My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?

Christ on the cross was aware that the onlookers saw Him as defeated so He quoted the first line of Ps 22. No psalm had a number at that time so to reference a particular psalm one just quoted the first line. But the audience would know the whole psalm by heart and would recognize His message was that appearances were deceiving and He was in fact victorious as per the ending: 31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that HE HATH DONE IT.

Then there is also the verses about the garden incident: Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." which many think He meant to avoid the cross out of fear or whatever.

I find the suggestion that He feared for His life in the garden, that He was under so much pressure He thought maybe He was to die in the garden and not on the cross. Death in the garden was the cup He wished to have taken away (but not His will but the Father's be done) so He could get to the cross.

Thus I humbly reject His time of doubt as probable since it is not necessary to anything and is explained quite easily as His faith in the plan.
I presume that the ďWhy have you forsaken me?Ē Passage was the intended reference because it seems more often referenced and came to my mind first. I could see your explanation as being a pretty logical one in that aspect.

Did you intend to say something akin to ďI find the suggestion (likely to be) that He feared for His life in the gardenĒ? I believe this to be your intention, but am uncertain.

I find it difficult to conceive that Jesus could be fully aware of His deity and yet have any true concern that anything could go any way other than exactly according to plan. Though, if I recall, you have a fairly unique view on several things that I had not heard of before, so Iíd be interested in any suggestions to that affect.

Thanks for entering the conversation, this has already gotten more involved participation than I expected it to here
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 11, 2020, 11:48:36 pm
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Jon Wood on January 12, 2020, 12:39:45 am
Thanks Ted, Iím working on a response to your second post and reviewing everything else so far. I hope to be back soon with some thoughts.

Iíd like to remind us (myself included) that the focal point is not directly deity or Jesus being God, the focus is primarily on Jesus being human. It is difficult to make a topic like this stay in that direction, but itís working better than I thought it would already, so thanks for an interesting discussion so far everyone. Iím looking at this from angles I probably wouldnít have thought about on my own
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 12, 2020, 05:24:45 pm
Thanks Ted, Iím working on a response to your second post and reviewing everything else so far. I hope to be back soon with some thoughts.

Iíd like to remind us (myself included) that the focal point is not directly deity or Jesus being God, the focus is primarily on Jesus being human. It is difficult to make a topic like this stay in that direction, but itís working better than I thought it would already, so thanks for an interesting discussion so far everyone. Iím looking at this from angles I probably wouldnít have thought about on my own

John 1:14.."And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

This is how JOHN and all the disciples viewed Jesus Christ..........


Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: patrick jane on January 22, 2020, 11:23:01 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8xHJXee-o
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on January 29, 2020, 07:28:10 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8xHJXee-o

Yes, God is everywhere yet, If a young boy who had godly powers,  would they not have surfaced  long before they did (after the resurrection).

I am content with the thought that Jesus had somehow abdicated His Godly powers until the Resurrection. With the Triune Body of God, The Holy Spirit and it 7 spirits and then Jesus Christ as: fully Man and Fully GOD we really cannot know how GOD pulled it off...The fact is, HE DID and I am good with that.

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on April 01, 2020, 07:33:30 pm
Thanks Ted, Iím working on a response to your second post and reviewing everything else so far. I hope to be back soon with some thoughts.

Iíd like to remind us (myself included) that the focal point is not directly deity or Jesus being God, the focus is primarily on Jesus being human. It is difficult to make a topic like this stay in that direction, but itís working better than I thought it would already, so thanks for an interesting discussion so far everyone. Iím looking at this from angles I probably wouldnít have thought about on my own

Jon...It is difficult to access if you found the answers you are/were looking for? With the "the focus is primarily on Jesus being human.", what part of His life are you looking for....Was you looking to the beating he took prior to the cross....Why HE did it... His young Life.....Etc....You have any direction I might be able to shed some light on a particular subject?

Stay Safe my friend

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Mr E on April 01, 2020, 09:16:05 pm
Hello PJ, John, Bladerunner and others....

Maybe someone can explain something to me about how this board is functioning? 

This appears to be Jon Wood's thread as OP, but somehow it shows Bladerunner as the thread starter?  Does this mean it was copied and pasted from elsewhere and brought here by Bladerunner?  It's really confusing.  If that's the case, it might look like a person has posted here when they didn't really, but it was migrated? 

It seems like almost everyone has moderator status-- maybe too many cooks in the kitchen making changes.  There are posts in at least one of Firestarter;s threads that are attributed to me, that are not mine.  Maybe this is another symptom...


Concerning the topic of this thread-- I could offer a perspective, but I'm not certain that this is still an active discussion.

Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: patrick jane on April 01, 2020, 10:05:20 pm
Hello PJ, John, Bladerunner and others....

Maybe someone can explain something to me about how this board is functioning? 

This appears to be Jon Wood's thread as OP, but somehow it shows Bladerunner as the thread starter?  Does this mean it was copied and pasted from elsewhere and brought here by Bladerunner?  It's really confusing.  If that's the case, it might look like a person has posted here when they didn't really, but it was migrated? 

It seems like almost everyone has moderator status-- maybe too many cooks in the kitchen making changes.  There are posts in at least one of Firestarter;s threads that are attributed to me, that are not mine.  Maybe this is another symptom...


Concerning the topic of this thread-- I could offer a perspective, but I'm not certain that this is still an active discussion.
Hey pal, don't rock the boat. Just kiddin' hahaha yes Blade separated the OP Topics top stand alone and a different thread for comments. Those threads at the top of Blade's forum are locked for no replies. To comment look for the link in the Main thread to the Comment thread. I like the idea.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on April 01, 2020, 10:19:56 pm
Hello PJ, John, Bladerunner and others....

Maybe someone can explain something to me about how this board is functioning? 

This appears to be Jon Wood's thread as OP, but somehow it shows Bladerunner as the thread starter?  Does this mean it was copied and pasted from elsewhere and brought here by Bladerunner?  It's really confusing.  If that's the case, it might look like a person has posted here when they didn't really, but it was migrated? 

It seems like almost everyone has moderator status-- maybe too many cooks in the kitchen making changes.  There are posts in at least one of Firestarter;s threads that are attributed to me, that are not mine.  Maybe this is another symptom...


Concerning the topic of this thread-- I could offer a perspective, but I'm not certain that this is still an active discussion.
Hey pa;, don't rock the boat. Just kiddin' hahaha yes Blade separated the OP Topics top stand alone and a different thread for comments. Those threads at the top of Blade's forum are locked for no replies. To comment look for the link in the Main thread to the Comment thread. I like the idea.

Mr.E....The first post is attributed to JON  right above the post itself. Yes This is a copy of the original post by JON. The original post is in the Comments Thread. There is even a link directly to all comments including the 1st post .   No post are lost

The Idea behind this Mr.E??? is the 1st post is most always hidden at the end of the page numbers. By doing this, The reader does not have to hunt for the Threads main post. It is posted in the Yellow section. No other comments are allowed here. However there is a thread by the same name
"XXXXXXX: Comments"

Hope this helps..
Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on April 01, 2020, 10:31:36 pm
Hello PJ, John, Bladerunner and others....

Maybe someone can explain something to me about how this board is functioning? 

This appears to be Jon Wood's thread as OP, but somehow it shows Bladerunner as the thread starter?  Does this mean it was copied and pasted from elsewhere and brought here by Bladerunner?  It's really confusing.  If that's the case, it might look like a person has posted here when they didn't really, but it was migrated? 

It seems like almost everyone has moderator status-- maybe too many cooks in the kitchen making changes.  There are posts in at least one of Firestarter;s threads that are attributed to me, that are not mine.  Maybe this is another symptom...


Concerning the topic of this thread-- I could offer a perspective, but I'm not certain that this is still an active discussion.

One more thing Mr. E.....It is apparent that all your post are original to you. However, should you ever use someone elses information as a source or as a headliner, you will have to learn how to give credit where credit is due. I suggest you practice reading this way as well.

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Jon Wood on April 02, 2020, 11:20:51 am
Hello PJ, John, Bladerunner and others....

Maybe someone can explain something to me about how this board is functioning? 

This appears to be Jon Wood's thread as OP, but somehow it shows Bladerunner as the thread starter?  Does this mean it was copied and pasted from elsewhere and brought here by Bladerunner?  It's really confusing.  If that's the case, it might look like a person has posted here when they didn't really, but it was migrated? 

It seems like almost everyone has moderator status-- maybe too many cooks in the kitchen making changes.  There are posts in at least one of Firestarter;s threads that are attributed to me, that are not mine.  Maybe this is another symptom...


Concerning the topic of this thread-- I could offer a perspective, but I'm not certain that this is still an active discussion.

Hi Mr. E, I think PJ and Blade explained the format fairly well. As far as this being an active thread or not, I would say it is if anyone has interest. Iím the kind of person that starts threads and comments early in its life, then I find something else that interests me, I eventually come back to see if anything intriguing has happened (when I remember to).
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Mr E on April 02, 2020, 09:51:51 pm

Now, weíve hit a point that Iím not sure that I understand how Jesus could be fully God in his moments of doubt. Things like that are what this whole idea is about really.

Since you hold to Him being both fully God and Fully man, please explain what you can from both perspectives. Itís something Iíve never understood.

It's a theological connundrum.  A pickle.

The reason it doesn't seem to make sense is because it doesn't make sense.  It's hard to believe because it's unbelievable.  Often, folks who want to support this idea do so because they feel some kind of obligation to their beliefs which are based on what they've chosen to hold on to from among all of the things that they've been taught.  The fully God, and fully man teaching is accepted dogma, so therefore to be accepted by these groups as one under the banner of Christian you must accept this basic teaching... -or, you are out of the Club, or otherwise beaten with the club.

The premise is unsupportable, so to believe this teaching you must in fact suspend your disbelief.  Do you get that?  In order to believe it, you have to not disbelieve it. You have to accept something that is wholly unacceptable on it's face, hold your nose and agree that it doesn't smell... off.  If you can do this, then you can be considered part of the conventional wisdom-- the Christian collective... group think certified.

But let's examine it and I'll demonstrate why the two parts of this puzzle are irreconcilable.  To be fully man and fully God at the same time, all the time.  That's the nut we are trying to crack, right?

Let's look at the man/God equation mathematically. 

Man---------------------God           God----------------------Man
100%-------------------0%            100%--------------------0%

There can be no parts man in the 'Jesus was fully God' camp.  So the supporters hedge and they do so unapologetically.  They surmise that Jesus must have had everything of God's power and knowledge (being fully God) and simply ignored it at times, that he was perfect and sinless- and submitted himself to John's baptism of repentance only as an example for others to follow (since he had nothing to repent for) as just a couple examples.  They call it a mystery-- that which they can't explain and with a wave of the hand they just 'declare' that he was both somehow because they also say in agreement with the scriptures that he was tempted in every way common to man and that he understands our weaknesses.  It speaks of these things in Hebrews 4 and 5 and it's clear that he understand weakness and temptation because he was subject to everything anyone else faces-- this is what makes his example relevant and powerful.  These teachers will be quick to point out Heb 4:4 highlighting the without sin part...

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Yet we know that the reason the high priest can appear before the throne of God is only because he has first repented and offered the gifts and sacrifice.

Heb 5: 1-2

For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself.

It says every high priest-- it doesn't say every high priest but Jesus.  And one day you and I and every man who claims the blood of sacrifice will also stand before this same throne-- sinless.  Not because we never sinned, or never gave in to temptation, but because this same high priest-- this man/Lamb/Jesus became our sacrifice and this Son of God- arose and ascended into heaven where he became our high priest.  Was Jesus the high priest while he walked on this earth?  No- there was another, but that one was appointed by men and Jesus was annointed and made high priest not in the order of men, but by God who declared him  A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.

How do I reconcile it?  I don't.  There is no reconciliation or fudging of numbers.  God is God and not a man.  Jesus was a man and men are not God.

God -the Father-  sent his Son--- the Word of God (which springs forth from the Father) via the Holy Spirit (a messenger) to descend upon and fill the man Jesus who-- so annointed became the Christ-- the Messiah (annointed one) -- who is always a man and nothing more than a man apart from that Spirit which dwells within.

So where did Jesus get his knowledge?  The same way all prophets through all of time got everything they were given.  Over and over you can read of it both in the stories of the prophets and patriarchs.  You'll read that the Word of the Lord, or the Angel of the Lord came to....

So why is this different?  Because some folks insist it must be... to align with their teachings and what they have been taught.

Anyways-- outside the mainstream on this, but that's how you avoid the Falls.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: patrick jane on April 02, 2020, 10:35:49 pm
Yes, Mr E however, Jesus had divine power; God's power in the earth as a man, the Great I Am.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Mr E on April 03, 2020, 10:17:55 am
I've pointed out elsewhere that all prophets upon whom the Word of God descends are used as instruments of God in whatever manner He chooses.  If you are speaking about miracles-- was Jesus the only one to have ever performed a miracle?  So if God permitted Jesus to do miracles, like God had permitted others in the past, then there is no 'but Jesus' model...

Elijah and Elisha raised the dead.
Moses split the sea and prophesied ten plagues
Samson had supernatural strength and so on....

Jericho was brought down to rubble with Joshua's command to blow the trumpets.
Enoch was taken up, so too Elijah and a man came to life again when his body was thrown in the grave and touched his bones... and where are those bones of Moses again?  Ezekiel cried.... them dry bones, now hear the Word of the Lord!

Can you love the prophets without thinking them to be God?  Everyone does.  Can you love Jesus without thinking him to be God?  I do.

Can you love God without conforming Him to your idea of Him?  You must.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on April 03, 2020, 03:03:18 pm
I've pointed out elsewhere that all prophets upon whom the Word of God descends are used as instruments of God in whatever manner He chooses.  If you are speaking about miracles-- was Jesus the only one to have ever performed a miracle?  So if God permitted Jesus to do miracles, like God had permitted others in the past, then there is no 'but Jesus' model...

Elijah and Elisha raised the dead.
Moses split the sea and prophesied ten plagues
Samson had supernatural strength and so on....

Jericho was brought down to rubble with Joshua's command to blow the trumpets.
Enoch was taken up, so too Elijah and a man came to life again when his body was thrown in the grave and touched his bones... and where are those bones of Moses again?  Ezekiel cried.... them dry bones, now hear the Word of the Lord!

Can you love the prophets without thinking them to be God?  Everyone does.  Can you love Jesus without thinking him to be God?  I do.

Can you love God without conforming Him to your idea of Him?  You must.

You said:"Jericho was brought down to rubble with Joshua's command to blow the trumpets."

That was Jesus that made that command!

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Mr E on April 03, 2020, 09:14:10 pm
Ahhhh.... so you recognize a pattern?

Joshua 6

Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on April 03, 2020, 09:36:43 pm
Ahhhh.... so you recognize a pattern?

Joshua 6

No, Joshua 5:13-15

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Mr E on April 04, 2020, 10:48:17 am
Joshua lifted up his eyes and behold!  A man was standing opposite him with a sword drawn....

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

It isn't Jesus, but Elohim... a son of God.  One came to Joshua son of Nun and one came to Yeshua son of Joseph (so it was said)

Then all that follows in both records is of six cycles, then a final seventh when it all comes crashing down.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: patrick jane on April 04, 2020, 11:17:23 am
I've pointed out elsewhere that all prophets upon whom the Word of God descends are used as instruments of God in whatever manner He chooses.  If you are speaking about miracles-- was Jesus the only one to have ever performed a miracle?  So if God permitted Jesus to do miracles, like God had permitted others in the past, then there is no 'but Jesus' model...

Elijah and Elisha raised the dead.
Moses split the sea and prophesied ten plagues
Samson had supernatural strength and so on....

Jericho was brought down to rubble with Joshua's command to blow the trumpets.
Enoch was taken up, so too Elijah and a man came to life again when his body was thrown in the grave and touched his bones... and where are those bones of Moses again?  Ezekiel cried.... them dry bones, now hear the Word of the Lord!

Can you love the prophets without thinking them to be God?  Everyone does.  Can you love Jesus without thinking him to be God?  I do.

Can you love God without conforming Him to your idea of Him?  You must.
Jesus Christ is God, the Father and the Son are equal, as is their Holy Spirit. The Triune Godhead is clearly seen more than several times in scripture. They knew what He was saying 2,000 years ago and that's why they killed Him.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on April 04, 2020, 04:15:19 pm
Joshua lifted up his eyes and behold!  A man was standing opposite him with a sword drawn....

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

It isn't Jesus, but Elohim... a son of God.  One came to Joshua son of Nun and one came to Yeshua son of Joseph (so it was said)

Then all that follows in both records is of six cycles, then a final seventh when it all comes crashing down.

I see you did not read it right..He said he was the"I AM" of Moses.  If that is not GOD then we are all in trouble...It is demonstrated many times that Angels (except fallen angels, i.e. Satan) will not allow anyone to worship them.......Joshua fell at the feet of Jesus. He is GOD!

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Bladerunner on April 04, 2020, 04:20:49 pm
Joshua lifted up his eyes and behold!  A man was standing opposite him with a sword drawn....

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

It isn't Jesus, but Elohim... a son of God.  One came to Joshua son of Nun and one came to Yeshua son of Joseph (so it was said)

Then all that follows in both records is of six cycles, then a final seventh when it all comes crashing down.

I see you did not read it right..He said he was the"I AM" of Moses.  If that is not GOD then we are all in trouble...It is demonstrated many times that Angels (except fallen angels, i.e. Satan) will not allow anyone to worship them.......Joshua fell at the feet of Jesus. He is GOD!

Blade

MR. E....you are very deceitful and this will be the last time I respond to your post. you deliberately changed the verses I spoke of from Joshua to Rev 1:13... I highlighted them in GREEN for you.... You sir are pretty low as far as I am concerned, trying to deceive people that your teaching/ramblings are true., 

Blade
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: Mr E on April 05, 2020, 11:01:56 am
I was showing you the pattern that I was speaking about.

The pattern recorded in Joshua is the same pattern shown in the book of Revelation.

But by all means-- go on your way.  Maybe some blind men will follow you.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief: Comments
Post by: patrick jane on April 05, 2020, 11:45:46 am
I was showing you the pattern that I was speaking about.

The pattern recorded in Joshua is the same pattern shown in the book of Revelation.

But by all means-- go on your way.  Maybe some blind men will follow you.
He has no patience Mr E - I knew you switched books and saw the obvious correlation.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Billy Evmur on April 05, 2020, 05:15:30 pm
My concerns would be - did Jesus suffer as a human man? Meaning, did He deal with sore feet or suffer from a deep cut? We know that He did, making Him fully human indeed. Again, did Jesus experience the same things I experience and the answer is yes, He did.

Thoughts, on the other hand, are where the differences lay. Did Jesus, as a man being fully human, experience doubt in faith or any other human emotion? Yes, He wept. At the same time and I mean at exactly the same time as He was a man weeping, could Jesus have called on His divinity to change the course of history or change the course of time. I believe He could. We can only imagine what it might be like to be man and God Almighty at the same time.
Why would the ability to experience pain be a factor in a full expression of humanity? If God has emotions such as love and anger, even prior to walking the Earth as Jesus, surely he was at least capable of feeling pain to some degree, why would the addition of physical pain require being fully human? Allowing the burden of physical pain to be an inconvenience for such a small time as compared to an eternity that He had no doubts about (because he brought it about) is a small price to pay for God. A price yes, pain yes, Iím not so sure it required humanity other than form. If emotions made Jesus a man, then Jesus was a man before he was born.

*See, weird huh? Now, itís going to be hard for me to be consistent at this and I wonít have an explanation for everything, because itís a relatively new idea Iíve sunk only a small amount of thought in prior to posting, on top of it maybe being impossible to apply in certain situations. Lol, my reply was kinda cringey to write, but it was kinda fun.*
Pain and suffering is only experienced in the earth as an earthly being, whether animal or human. The pain and the suffering that Jesus experienced is real and He experienced every human experience, emotional or not. Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh in the earth as a man and God as a man. I can make perfect sense of this as much as anyone possibly can with discernment from the Holy Spirit and the information in God's words.




... because whatever He bore He bore for US in our place ... our faith is not up to that, but at the least we can receive comfort to know that whatever we have to suffer, He suffered too.
Title: Re: An Experimental Approach to a Long Accepted Belief
Post by: Bladerunner on April 06, 2020, 07:09:47 pm
My concerns would be - did Jesus suffer as a human man? Meaning, did He deal with sore feet or suffer from a deep cut? We know that He did, making Him fully human indeed. Again, did Jesus experience the same things I experience and the answer is yes, He did.

Thoughts, on the other hand, are where the differences lay. Did Jesus, as a man being fully human, experience doubt in faith or any other human emotion? Yes, He wept. At the same time and I mean at exactly the same time as He was a man weeping, could Jesus have called on His divinity to change the course of history or change the course of time. I believe He could. We can only imagine what it might be like to be man and God Almighty at the same time.
Why would the ability to experience pain be a factor in a full expression of humanity? If God has emotions such as love and anger, even prior to walking the Earth as Jesus, surely he was at least capable of feeling pain to some degree, why would the addition of physical pain require being fully human? Allowing the burden of physical pain to be an inconvenience for such a small time as compared to an eternity that He had no doubts about (because he brought it about) is a small price to pay for God. A price yes, pain yes, Iím not so sure it required humanity other than form. If emotions made Jesus a man, then Jesus was a man before he was born.

*See, weird huh? Now, itís going to be hard for me to be consistent at this and I wonít have an explanation for everything, because itís a relatively new idea Iíve sunk only a small amount of thought in prior to posting, on top of it maybe being impossible to apply in certain situations. Lol, my reply was kinda cringey to write, but it was kinda fun.*
Pain and suffering is only experienced in the earth as an earthly being, whether animal or human. The pain and the suffering that Jesus experienced is real and He experienced every human experience, emotional or not. Jesus had doubt in His faith, as we do. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh in the earth as a man and God as a man. I can make perfect sense of this as much as anyone possibly can with discernment from the Holy Spirit and the information in God's words.




... because whatever He bore He bore for US in our place ... our faith is not up to that, but at the least we can receive comfort to know that whatever we have to suffer, He suffered too.

you are kidding, right!..I derive NO comfort in knowing that it was MY SINS that placed him on that Cross. Yes, His death brought salvation to all who believed in the son (Jesus Christ) and His Gospel (according to scripture).

But to take comfort in his death?

Blade