Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Adam and eve, indeed all humans are in the imagine of the universe. The best graphical organizer we have of the universe is the periodic table. so, the best image we can have of god is the periodic table table.
But, the event just proves how much people do not know what they don't know.
To love anything we must know that 'thing'...we can say we love a puppy in Kansas we will be getting
in 8 weeks seeing the pictures and hearing about it....but real love occurs when we have that puppy
in our arms and know that puppy.
So hand in hand loving God really means knowing Him, up-close and personal.
Not loving things we have heard about Him.
So being close to Him in an intimate relationship.
I always enjoy your posts so much.
I agree, and I would say that loving a puppy or anyone or anything else is the equivalent of loving and knowing God, since God IS love.
When we are born from the Divine womb, as 'children of God' we are created perfect. Perfect but ignorant. All we know is perfection. How does one appreciate that gift without understanding the state of separation from All That Is?
As offspring off the Divine, we have enormous potential as baby Gods. But, just as we wouldn't give a baby a loaded gun to play with, we do not have access to our inherent abilities. We have to earn those powers, bit by bit, through understanding & realisation.
The Mystics of Old advised that 'All answers are to be found within.' All knowledge, all understanding, is encoded in our DNA. Scientists call dormant DNA 'junk DNA'. No, within that dormant DNA are all the answers of life, 'God' & the Universe.
(Self expression & explaining certain concepts doesn't come easy to me. If I fail to answer sufficiently or clearly please feel free to ask & ask again until I do)
Thanks for explaining. This is a concept I've heard before. I can't say I am in agreement with it, but I understand what would lead one to that conclusion.
The Image of God is man, but man is flesh, with shape, and figure. God is a Spirit who fills both heaven and earth.
But Adam and, and, and, Eve is the Image of God, not just Adam alone, but with Eve, meaning ANOTHER of ONESELF. Supportive scripture, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”
God is a plurality or ANOTHER of HIMSEF that was to Manifest in the earth to come by flesh. Supportive scripture, .Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come”. .
This figure to Come is in reference to the "US" and the “OUR” in Genesis 1:26. and this “OUR” is the Equal "share" of God, the diversity of God in Flesh. Better known as the Offspring of David.
For the term Offspring can be translated by the (KJV) as “diversity”, which simply means “another” of oneself.
so the Image of God is MAN, "ANOTHER" of himself in Flesh.
Peace in Christ Yeshua.
While in the image/likeness can infer that we can love, be forgiving, etc, in other words have his attributes, it has to be read in context and the context is creation.
God was alone/Adam was alone
God created his Son from himself/God created Eve from Adam
All other life came from God and through His Son/All human life came from Adam and through Eve.
It said in "our (their) image" speaking of two, and two were on earth showing the progression.
So do you believe that Christianity is simply a created religion by a group of people who wanted another repressive way to control people?
Or is there enough truth in the writings to recognize that many around Jesus at the time would say, "Truly, this was the Son of God," (Mark 15:39)?
Somewhere in between the two.
Christianity was created to control the masses but it was wrapped around certain truths to some degree.
Son of God was a common title back then.
Jesus was a man. If he did indeed refer to him as a son of God, it would've been to emphasise that we are all sons (& daughters) of God. He made the point of saying "Is it not written in your law; 'I say, ye are Gods from the most High'?"
Somewhere in between the two.
Christianity was created to control the masses but it was wrapped around certain truths to some degree.
Son of God was a common title back then.
Jesus was a man. If he did indeed refer to him as a son of God, it would've been to emphasise that we are all sons (& daughters) of God. He made the point of saying "Is it not written in your law; 'I say, ye are Gods from the most High'?"
yup, I say the truth lies between deny everything millimental sect of atheism and theist fundymentals.
While in the image/likeness can infer that we can love, be forgiving, etc, in other words have his attributes, it has to be read in context and the context is creation.
God was alone/Adam was alone
God created his Son from himself/God created Eve from Adam
All other life came from God and through His Son/All human life came from Adam and through Eve.
It said in "our (their) image" speaking of two, and two were on earth showing the progression.
this is what I been saying, the term Son, metaphorically speaking, is used that of prominent moral character or characteristics. it have nothing to do with Gender, not in the Lord Jesus case as to his title as Son. son is used in the way of those who act in a certain way, whether evil, or good. see Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words ,G5207, huios, Son.
but I have a question for you to clear up, you said, "God was alone/Adam was alone". I agree, spot on scripture, but you also said, "God created his Son from himself/God created Eve from Adam".
please explain, God "created" his son from himself. I noted your example of Adam and Eve, but it want apply to the Spirit. so I'm interested in how God "created" another of himself.
please explain, God "created" his son from himself. I noted your example of Adam and Eve, but it want apply to the Spirit. so I'm interested in how God "created" another of himself.
thanks in advance.
Peace in Christ Yeshua.
The Bible does not explain it.
Jesus is called the only begotten son, a son, the first born of creation, the beginning of the creation by God and similar expressions. Since nothing comes from nothing Jesus had to have a source. Just as Eve came from Adam and was not equal but had the same human nature, Jesus came from God. The image or likeness was in context with the coming into existence.
Adam spoke of Eve as the mother all living
Genesis 3: 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
We are told the same of Jesus as the one through whom all creation from God came.
1Cor 8; 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,by whom are all things, and we by him.
The "of" and "by" are better understood in modern English as:
NIV 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live
Notice Christians have but one God, the father and Jesus is our Lord not our God. From and through just as Genesis showed. Paul understood it and under inspiration in effect repeated it.
Somewhere in between the two.
Christianity was created to control the masses but it was wrapped around certain truths to some degree.
Son of God was a common title back then.
Jesus was a man. If he did indeed refer to him as a son of God, it would've been to emphasise that we are all sons (& daughters) of God. He made the point of saying "Is it not written in your law; 'I say, ye are Gods from the most High'?"
So you believe Christianity's origin, that's important, the word "origin," was a group of men seeking to control the masses?
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, professor of religious studies at University of North Carolina and former fundamentalist Christian, then former liberal Christian, and now agnostic may have an opinion grounded in better research. This is what Wikipedia says about Ehrman:
Quote:
In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely fictitious being.[24]
The 2014 release of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and proffers how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.[25]
In Jesus Before the Gospels, he examines the early Christian oral tradition and its role in shaping the stories about Jesus that we encounter in the New Testament.[26]
While abandoning the idea that Jesus is the Incarnation of God, Ehrman is in complete agreement about a historical Jesus, not a make-believe one. His thoughts revolve around the idea of myth arising from a remarkable figure in history---sort of the like the myths surrounding Davey Crockett, an uncle in my wife's family tree. There was much published about ole Davey, but at less than 200 years old it is still sometimes difficult to sort out fact and embellishment.
For me, I trust in God that Jesus came to show us how God wants us to live. Maybe God used the Buddha as well, I don't know. But where any religion or faith matches up with the best I see in Jesus, I do not discount it as "worldly."
Reading Scripture however, requires wisdom to be brought to reading table in order to take any wisdom away. It's one of the things I appreciate about Dr. Ehrman.
Reza Aslan, Muslim turned Christian turned Muslim, summed up his view of Jesus in this manner:
“The memory of the revolutionary zealot who walked across Galilee gathering an army of disciples with the goal of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, the magnetic preacher who defied the authority of the Temple priesthood in Jerusalem, the radical Jewish nationalist who challenged the Roman occupation and lost, has been almost completely lost to history. That is a shame. Because the one thing any comprehensive study of the historical Jesus should hopefully reveal is that Jesus of Nazareth—Jesus the man—is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in.”
― Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-28-2018 at 12:03 AM..
So you believe Christianity's origin, that's important, the word "origin," was a group of men seeking to control the masses?
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, professor of religious studies at University of North Carolina and former fundamentalist Christian, then former liberal Christian, and now agnostic may have an opinion grounded in better research. This is what Wikipedia says about Ehrman:
While abandoning the idea that Jesus is the Incarnation of God, Ehrman is in complete agreement about a historical Jesus, not a make-believe one. His thoughts revolve around the idea of myth arising from a remarkable figure in history---sort of the like the myths surrounding Davey Crockett, an uncle in my wife's family tree. There was much published about ole Davey, but at less than 200 years old it is still sometimes difficult to sort out fact and embellishment.
For me, I trust in God that Jesus came to show us how God wants us to live. Maybe God used the Buddha as well, I don't know. But where any religion or faith matches up with the best I see in Jesus, I do not discount it as "worldly."
Reading Scripture however, requires wisdom to be brought to reading table in order to take any wisdom away. It's one of the things I appreciate about Dr. Ehrman.
Reza Aslan, Muslim turned Christian turned Muslim, summed up his view of Jesus in this manner:
“The memory of the revolutionary zealot who walked across Galilee gathering an army of disciples with the goal of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, the magnetic preacher who defied the authority of the Temple priesthood in Jerusalem, the radical Jewish nationalist who challenged the Roman occupation and lost, has been almost completely lost to history. That is a shame. Because the one thing any comprehensive study of the historical Jesus should hopefully reveal is that Jesus of Nazareth—Jesus the man—is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in.”
― Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
You give the perfect example with Davey Crockett. The story becomes clouded in just 200 years.
What we do know is that we can see the morphing of Jesus from man to God. The early church made a heap of stuff up. Originally Jesus was just a man, an important teacher to the Jews but a man none-the-less. Then over the next couple of hundred years, a bunch of men, many of them drunken illiterates, came to the astounding conclusion that this man was actually God himself. Men decided that, not 'God'. They 'borrowed' Son of God which was a Roman title.
"Jesus of Nazareth" is another fabrication. The town of Nazareth didn't exist at the time.
Stables did not exist in the Middle East (It was an English construct) If a Jew or Arab inherited a stable, they'd have kicked the animals out & moved in their in-laws.
Saul/Paul was a self-confessed liar who didn't know the Rabbi & had no way of knowing his teachings.
The Bible itself has morphed over time. There's over 14,800 changes between the first Bible & the KJV.
Just several examples that prove that todays Bible & Christian doctrine is very different than the original.
Personally, I lean towards the theory that Jesus was a twin. One was a Rabbi who preached things like 'Love thy neighbour' & 'turn the other cheek'. The other twin a political agitator who advised 'If a man has no sword have him sell his garment so that he may purchase one'. Those conflicting statements alone sound like two different men with differing agendas.
But really, who knows for certain?
When I finally confronted my indoctrination, I was able to do so by figuring that if God would punish me for using my intellect in an earnest search for the truth & for querying a convoluted, contradictory, illogical book, then none of us are safe & he's best avoided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
