Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
Then simply produce a quote which says A) what you claim and B) that I've denied.
“And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.” “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.” “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.…” (John 12: 44-46)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1: 1-5)
It is significant that the apostle John begins his Gospel with the words “In the beginning” since he clearly intends that his Gospel start with the same words as Genesis, that is, creation ex nihilo, or special creation as evolutionary theoreticians prefer saying instead.
Creation ex nihilo means that as the Almighty Word ‘thought’ and ‘spoke living words,’ creation came into existence in six instantaneous acts of creation. The Word spoke and “all things were made by” His living Word. They are not now being made as the concept of evolution requires.
The Word (Greek ‘logos’) is the first of at least a dozen titles given to Christ in the first chapter of John. For example: ‘the Light’ (1:7-9); ‘only begotten of the Father’ (1:14, 18); Jesus Christ (1:17); ‘the Lord’ (1:23); ‘Lamb of God’ (1: 29, 36)
The ‘Word of God’ (Jesus Christ)is a very strong assertion that Jesus is God in the flesh Who was in “the beginning.” The Word of God Jesus Christ was there in the very beginning before creation, before time, extending without initial beginning into eternity past.
“Made by him” is an emphatic statement declaring that the Word Jesus Christ, before His incarnation and subsequent rejection and crucifixion by sin-blinded men, had made everything in the universe by His living Word in six instantaneous acts.
“the darkness comprehended it not” means that the darkened minds of proud, covetous, envy-bitten men willfully refused to come to the Light, the creator and sustainer of all life, when it was offered to them because they loved “darkness” rather than light as their deeds were evil.
The “evil deeds” of BroJoeK, his narcissism-fueled double-mindedness, lying, sophistry, web-spinning, hypocrisy and preference for darkness instead of light, is clearly evident in the following quotes, with the second not only refuting the first but baldly asserting both rejection of the Word and contempt for Him:
“I’ve never denied anything the Bible says about the “deity of Christ”, and you can’t produce a quote which shows I did.”
” the Bible never directly says that “Jesus was God Himself”. Sure, you are entitled to believe it, but some don’t, including many of our Founding Fathers — deistic Unitarians & Freemasons. The question is whether Free Republic can find room in its heart, on this Christmans Day, to tolerate such interpretations?”
Christmas, or Christ mass, is the day when the faithful celebrate the miracle of the birth of Jesus Christ God incarnate who in “the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....The same was in the beginning with God.”
But in a further display of iniquitous enmity toward our Savior, BroJoeK makes clear his rejection of Jesus Christ and asks if “Free Republic can find room in its heart, on this Christmans Day, to tolerate such interpretations?”
He who rejects Jesus Christ is not a follower of the “Way, the Truth, and the Life,” hence not a Christian. BroJoeK has made clear his rejection of Jesus Christ and despite his fallacious claims otherwise, is not a Christian though the Way is as yet open to him if he repents.
The New Testament clearly & unequivocally says that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ.
So, anybody who wishes to go by the title "Christian" must accept: that's what it's all about.
Put another way, if you deny it, then you are not "Christian" no matter what you may pretend.
But the Bible does not directly say that Jesus is God Himself.
Yes there are certain proof-texts which can be, and have historically been, interpreted to mean such a thing, and from there it is but a short theological hop-skip&jump to full-blown trinitarianism of God-the-Father, God-the-Son and God-the-Holy-Ghost.
And along with Trinitarianism under the state religion of the late-Roman Empire, we also begin to see persecutions & murders of those who won't buy it -- a condition which lasted more-or-less right up to the early modern era = 1,500 years.
In those days a charge of "heresy" -- or in Kevmo's delightful version (post #1,983) "God Damned Heresy" -- was a threat of murder, just as was the charge "blasphemy" in Jesus' time.
Most notorious, of course, was the Spanish Inquisition -- which officially lasted from 1478 to 1834 -- aimed primarily at former Jews & Muslims who had pretended to convert in order to continue living lawfully in Spain.
But there were many, many more persecutions throughout Christendom, beginning soon after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD -- for 1,500 years.
The last execution for "heresy" in Great Britain was around 1700, the last in Spain in 1826 -- almost exactly 1,500 years since the Council of Nicaea.
Along with "heresy" were related crimes, such as the afore mentioned "blasphemy", plus "apostasy", "infidelity", "paganism", etc.
There are no readily available numbers for how many in total died, but in the Crusade against Cathars (southern France, 13th century) alone estimates are up to one million.
Today, these sites -- here and here -- list about 50 non-Trinitarian Christian denominations.
Yes, it is an eclectic group, most never even heard of, though some better known -- Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Creation-7th Day Adventists, some Quakers, Shakers, some Pentecostals, and here's one you just have to love: Muggletonians (!), the last of whom died off naturally in 1979.
All-told, I would guess maybe-maybe 50 million non-Trinitarian Christians -- Kevmo's "God Damned Heretics" -- which is well under 5% of all Christians, but historically they included some very important people, amongst whom were many of our Founding Fathers -- Unitarian, deistically inclined Freemason Christians.
They were all "God Damned Heretics", who have our own poor Kevmo so very exercised.
And there's more here, because Trinitarianism depends for it's viability on specific interpretations of certain well-known texts, for example (as we discussed in post #1,940): John 10:30, where Jesus says: I and the Father are one.".
Well, when you research this particular passage, come to find out that one otherwise Trinitarian theologian, John Calvin, wrote:
And so, one-by-one, every Trinitarian proof-text which people like Kevmo might offer up is found not to say what they claim.
Nor does the Bible ever authorize Kevmo to declare, in Jesus Name, anybody a "God Damned Heretic".
But why would Kevmo ever need such authorization, since obviously, his job is not to bring people to Christ, but rather to drive them away.
And who is better at that?
But I have denied none of the texts you posted.
I don't agree with your interpretations of those texts.
Except here.....
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
John 14:8-13 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Matthew 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
Colossians 2:9-10 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
1 John 2:22-25 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.
Are we debating the same subject on this thread too? That makes three!
Thanks for the ping.
"Many" Founders were Unitarian? A bit of a stretch to say "many." Perhaps a confirmed "few" for sure. You have to factor in that the Enlightenment movement did not affect the American colonists as much as it did Europe. This was due to the Great Awakening, the religious revival of the 1740s, was partially responsible for cutting short the spread of deism. Below link will take you to the Fifty Five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention and their church affilations:
The Fifty Five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention
Source: errantskeptics.org
If you have questions on the source quoted please let me know. He is pinged above.
“I have denied none of the texts you posted.
I don’t agree with your interpretations of those texts.”
Spirited: Stop playing silly, tiresome word games. What you disagree with, and doubtless find contemptible, is what the Almighty Word has revealed about Himself. Your disagreement is not with me, or Kevmo, or metmom, or anyone else on this thread who has taken the time to post the Revealed Word for your edification. No, your disagreement is with the Almighty Word Himself.
But the Bible does not directly say that Jesus is God Himself.
Actually the bible does not say WHAT God “IS”....
cause literally no one knows what God IS..
Obviously God is not human.. according to lore God made humans..
God is not a spirit because God made spirits.. (whatever a spirit is)..
Next question is, is Jesus actually human?...
i.e. Did Jesus exist before he became (disguised as) human?..
What is Jesus NOW?...
All are questions no human can realistically answer..
Bible worshipers think they know.. but probably don’t...
I can’t say they are wrong because I don’t “know” these answers either..
It is conceivably possible you are not human either..
but I doubt you have any of the answers you try to imply you do..
Which is OK with me.. this planet is loaded with bull sperm..
The entertainment never stops..
You may not see immediately that the coming Bible passage holds a Physics lesson, but it is there, in an exchange between Jesus and his disciple.Jesus speaks with his closest friends:
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. (NIV)
What Jesus had related to Philip was the truth that the entirety of what the disciples could sense of the multi-dimensional God was what they could sense in Jesus. Where, or ’in Whom’ the many dimensions of God intersected our dimensionally limited spacetime was the only place Philip could sense the presence of God directly, as in touch, smell, feel, hearing. Jesus was with the disciples as a living breathing intersection of God with their spacetime reality ... God passed through their 'brane' (their spacetime limits) and manifest to them as Jesus.
There is a further hint that our perspective is correct, that Jesus was God intersecting spacetime of the disciples, found in the scripture passage which states:
Philippians 2:6 – 8 Who, [Jesus] being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross! (NIV)
Have you ever thought about what ‘humbled himself‘ means from the perspective of self-limiting of capabilities? Jesus, as God with us, limited the capabilities He would call upon while in our world. Have you ever wondered if ‘obedient to death‘ might refer to Jesus limiting His simultaneous existence in many realms, subjecting Himself to the limitations of space and time as we experience them? We will be exploring these notions.
For the Disciples to comprehend God in Jesus and Jesus in God was a function of remembering episodes of Jesus’ actions they had witnessed, applying learned concepts about the Creator God they had acquired prior to meeting Jesus, transferring these notions to the experiences they witnessed, then processing this reality (which in many instances of miracles defied rational explanation) as a function of this man with whom they traveled and ate and worshipped.
An ‘un-miraculous’ nature of that presence of God with men was startling to me as I began to fully comprehend the simplicity of the explanation for John 14, during the Cosmos episode on dimensions and tesseracts! The one who spoke the entire universe into being, and even the space and time of the entire shebang, walked and ate and slept with these flawed men!
Honestly, in my short time posting here on FR, I have noticed the responses to refute proof texts involve creative gymnastics to ignore what the lexicon clearly states. For example, in John 20:28 "theos" is well theos not something else. Here is just a sample to examine:
John 20:
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
When I asked for an explanation of why did Thomas call Jesus Christ "my God" these were the answers I received:
-the first answer was "Thomas was actually saying like we do today 'OMG' or oh my, your back!" Well there are a couple of problems with this interpretation given the first should suffice. That being something Thomas would be aware of since he was an itinerant Jew: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain." Now of course in our times we think using God's Name in vain is using it with a curse word, but to Thomas and Jews of his era, saying "God" for other than prayer or song was a violation of Exodus 20, which contains what many call "The Big 10."
-The second answer received when I refuted the first rather silly answer, was "Thomas really did not mean "God" but there is a better interpretation or explanation." Of which I was told Thomas 'really' said "Lord or Master." Of which I refuted given the lexicon for "God" in John 20:28 is "theos" and not "kyrios" which is Lord or Master and a few other honorific titles. So Thomas clearly was not saying "My Lord and my Lord (Master)." That would be redundant and make no sense. So, clearly "God" in John 20:28 IS "theos". Based on the lexicon the choices for "theos"(G2316) are: God; a god; goddess; godly. So since those who deny Jesus Christ is Truly God and Truly man don't see Thomas actually saying "My God" but something else, the choices remaining are clearly either a god or godly. When I asked "which is it then?" I received no reply other than why I was so focused on Thomas. Which of course I took as a duck and cover response. Why? Because this is a clear case where some ignore the actual Greek word used for "God", "theos."
-The third response I received was that "there is a much better explanation for this passage because there was 'no way' Thomas could come to the conclusion Jesus Christ was God." When I asked for that "better explanation" again I never got one, other than "you can't see it because you are blind." Well that was interesting but still no answer.
Since I received no answers with regards to the use of "theos", I decided maybe a different passage would be better. I then asked who exactly was tempted in Matthew chapter 4? The Father or Jesus Christ? The answer I received was "you can't see it because you are blind."
Perhaps someone else would like to take a swing at what I presented.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
John 14:8-13 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Matthew 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
Colossians 2:9-10 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
1 John 2:22-25 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.
Indeed very clear, and you have only given us a small sample. Others have posted a full PC window full of texts with associated logical commentary.
Interesting. Which book did you cite in your post?
Possibly beyond our grasp, where our concepts of "sameness" and "separateness" might not even apply rationally.
One I am writing/finishing.
A truly profound observation, tac. Our current conceptualization of dimension Time may be so primitive as to exclude more accurate description of reality.
The whole disagreement may be over interpretations of words that can’t even accuratley convey the reality of what’s being argued over.
Oh, my apologies I did not know you were writing the book. Ok, let us know when done:)
The Black TelephoneWhen I was a young boy, my father had one of the first telephones in our neighborhood.. I remember the polished, old case fastened to the Wall. The shiny receiver hung on the side of the box. I was too little to reach the telephone, but used to listen with fascination when my mother talked to it.
Then I discovered that somewhere inside the wonderful device lived an amazing person. Her name was "Information Please" and there was nothing she did not know. Information Please could supply anyone's number and the correct time. My personal experience with the genie-in-a-bottle came one day while my mother was visiting a neighbor. Amusing myself at the tool bench in the basement, I whacked my finger with a hammer, the pain was terrible, but there seemed no point in crying because there was no one home to give sympathy.
I walked around the house sucking my throbbing finger, finally arriving at the stairway. The telephone! Quickly, I ran for the footstool in the parlor and dragged it to the landing. Climbing up, I unhooked the receiver in the parlor and held it to my ear.
"Information, please" I said into the mouthpiece just above my head.
A click or two and a small clear voice spoke into my ear.
"Information."
"I hurt my finger..." I wailed into the phone, the tears came readily enough now that I had an audience.
"Isn't your mother home?" came the question.
"Nobody's home but me," I blubbered.
"Are you bleeding?" the voice asked.
No,"I replied. "I hit my finger with the hammer and it hurts."
"Can you open the icebox?" she asked.
I said I could.
"Then chip off a little bit of ice and hold it to your finger," said the voice.
After that, I called "Information Please" for everything.. I asked her for help with my geography, and she told me where Philadelphia was. She helped me with my math.
She told me my pet chipmunk that I had caught in the park just the day before, would eat fruit and nuts.
Then, there was the time Petey, our pet canary, died. I called, "Information Please," and told her the sad story. She listened, and then said things grown-ups say to soothe a child. But I was not consoled. I asked her, "Why is it that birds should sing so beautifully and bring joy to all families, only to end up as a heap of feathers on the bottom of a cage?"
She must have sensed my deep concern, for she said quietly, " Wayne , always remember that there are other worlds to sing in."
Somehow I felt better.
Another day I was on the telephone, "Information Please."
”Information," said in the now familiar voice. "How do I spell fix?" I asked.
All this took place in a small town in the Pacific Northwest . When I was nine years old, we moved across the country to Boston . I missed my friend very much.
"Information Please" belonged in that old wooden box back home and I somehow never thought of trying the shiny new phone that sat on the table in the hall. As I grew into my teens, the memories of those childhood conversations never really left me.
Often, in moments of doubt and perplexity I would recall the serene sense of security I had then. I appreciated now how patient, understanding, and kind she was to have spent her time on a little boy.
A few years later, on my way west to college, my plane put down in Seattle . I had about a half-hour or so between planes. I spent 15 minutes or so on the phone with my sister, who lived there now. Then without thinking what I was doing, I dialed my hometown operator and said, "Information Please."
Miraculously, I heard the small, clear voice I knew so well.
”Information."
I hadn't planned this, but I heard myself saying, "Could you please tell me how to spell fix?"
There was a long pause. Then came the soft spoken answer, "I guess your finger must have healed by now."
I laughed, "So it's really you," I said. "I wonder if you have any idea how much you meant to me during that time?"
I wonder," she said, "if you know how much your call meant to me.
I never had any children and I used to look forward to your calls."
I told her how often I had thought of her over the years and I asked if I could call her again when I came back to visit my sister.
"Please do", she said. "Just ask for Sally."
Three months later I was back in Seattle . A different voice answered, "Information."
I asked for Sally.
"Are you a friend?" she said.
"Yes, a very old friend," I answered.
"I'm sorry to have to tell you this,"She said. "Sally had been working part time the last few years because she was sick. She died five weeks ago."
Before I could hang up, she said, "Wait a minute, did you say your name was Wayne ?"
" Yes." I answered.
"Well, Sally left a message for you. She wrote it down in case you called. Let me read it to you."
The note said, "Tell him there are other worlds to sing in. He'll know what I mean."
I thanked her and hung up. I knew what Sally meant.
Never underestimate the impression you may make on others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.