Skip to main content

Listen Nimrod/Nmaginate,

The concept of the devil is a myth. A myth conjured up by ancient religions when they deified mortal man. Try to think metaphorically please. There is no man with a pitchfork orchestrating what's going on "up" here. Hell is here, metaphorically. So the only one's battling against God is US.

Nimrod was intentional. He was a Black Warrior that created the first strong Black Nation after the flood. He is considered the first "Son" of God story with Cush/Khus/Chaos. Nimrod is the Great Confounder that scattered the nations that spoke one language at the tower of Babel.

8 Cush was the father [d] of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD ; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD ." 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in [e] Shinar. [f] 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, [g] Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city

Nimrod is credited with emancipating us from the strict bondage of holiness impressed upon us by God. We were actually free to do whatever we pleased. His Greek name is Bacchus which is where the term Bacchanalian comes from. THERE IS NO DEVIL. It's some racist bullcrap created by people who coined the term Hermeneutics/Hermes, but where totally lost in their assumptions.

Therefore God never "LOST" the reigns. His creation emancipated themselves from Him only to become slaves of orgies, drunkeness, and all other manner of anti-spiritual living.

Christ emancipates us from Bacchus. Metaphorically.
Dude, your argument is with DIVINE JOY. I didn't say there was a Devil. All this spun from here insertion of the idea that God had to "win" the reigns of Death from Satan.

There being a Devil or not, was not something you immediately addressed when you decided to comment as if in support of DIVINE JOY's idea. So you repeating "There Is No Devil" to me, BESIDES BEING OFF-THE-POINT, is pretty silly.

It would only make sense if I was asserting there was. I merely questioned the idea of how God could be God if the Devil or someone else had the reigns over (Life and) Death.

quote:
Therefore God never "LOST" the reigns.
Holes in your logic.

This is what you said:

  • I believe he "lost" the reigns when He entrusted his creation with control over their destiny and themselves.

  • I don't see how Him "taking" something back that His people lost is evidence of Him not being Soverign.
As you will note I posed this question from the very on-set:
When did the ALMIGHTY lose the reigns of Life Or Death to anyone?

Again, note it was DIVINE JOY's characterization of "win" that caused this to be phrased in WIN vs. LOSE. And, again, she also inserted the Devil. Not me.

But it's funny how you were willing to say God "lost" the reigns by entrusting man... But, obviously, you couldn't maintain that once it was clear to you how that dispossessed God of the reigns just as much as it would have had it been Satan.

So please say things that are consistent. If you want to quarrel over either the idea of (Win vs.) "LOSE" or the idea of Satan then you cyber-fight is with D.J. and not me.

You still haven't squarely addressed anything I've said for taking issue with things she ultimately said.

So let's see you do some little cute name plays with her. Or you can continue Shadow Boxing and pretending you're sparring with me.
HERU?

What seems to be your problem with following his conversation?


The question is how does a SOVEREIGN, ALMIGHTY, ALL POWERFUL GOD who has Unmitigated, PERMANENT POWER somehow not have the "reigns" over (Life and) DEATH??

So whether Satan or man had the "reigns" that invariably says God didn't to some extent if not entirely for whatever moment/time Satan or Man had it.

As for you silly, equivocating question:
When did anyone say he "Lost" control?

Well, besides DIVINE JOY's obvious Win (vs. Lose) idea... YOU DID!

I believe he "lost" the reigns when He entrusted his creation with control over their destiny and themselves.

Hmmm... If man has CONTROL over the reigns and you say you believe [God] "lost" the reigns when they were in Man's control? What are you saying besides that at that time and in that instance God did not have control (you said he "lost it) because he entrusted it (the reigns or control) to man?

Again, my question addressed the idea either way - Man w/ reigns or Satan w/ reigns. You know I did say ANYONE.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:

Did God ever lose control over life and death? That's the question it seems like your asking me.
That's the only thing at issue here and that comes from DIVINE JOY's comment. The one you had a perfect understanding of who the author was. So why you insist on all the other BS and try to assign her statements and what logically extends from them to me is pretty funny...

Now, if you've figured out the question "I seem to be asking"... how come you haven't addressed it forthrightly.

"With Christ there is no death..."

Such RHETORIC does not answer that question.
Again, you have to consult what D.J. said... something you voiced agreement with. So all you're doing is contradicting yourself or trying to avoid doing so when it's obvious you can't maintain your agreement with her, what you said immediately following my immediate response to her and this other stuff you want to say.

quote:
I've approached you with textual, spiritual, mythical, and metaphorical "logic", yet and still you pretend like you don't understand.
BULLSHIT. I keep telling you you're not answering the question. At every point you keep trying to confuse it. You're the one playing semantical games. Again, what I questioned about DJ's statement was clear and the logical extension of what she said.

You're the one who wanted to insert "metaphorical" SEMANTICS to say, in essence, what she said isn't what she meant or what that means. There is no way around it. You said something again that doesn't add up to who and what GOD being ALMIGHTY is... You said he "lost" the reigns...

That's your foul up. Not mine. There's no way you can wiggle around that. So keep bringing up things that are not material to the question at hand.

Again, you say what I "seem" to be asking but you sure don't SEEM like you're ever going to answer it. You'll just answer AROUND it.

quote:
furthermore I'm not all that concerned with your salvation.
Dude stick to the point...
I haven't accused you of anything like that. I didn't say you were trying to convert me or anything to that effect. So why are you wasting your breath on things that DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION??

Save the rhetoric. Address the question.

Are you now saying you made you initial comments in err? And DJ's were too?
I've given "MY" understanding (which you clearly disagree with) not Divine Joy's. I can't nor will I try to speak for her, because I'm sure our views will be misaligned somewhere.

I've approached the question with an earnest answer to the best of my ability.

Did God ever lose control over life and death?
NO

How does this fit with Jesus dying so that we might live?
That's a question that I am unequipped to answer in literal terms. I've given my spiritual interpretation because presently that's all I have.
quote:
How does this fit with Jesus dying so that we might live?

That's a question that I am unequipped to answer in literal terms. I've given my spiritual interpretation because presently that's all I have.
And that's not a question I asked at all. Nor did I ask you for a spiritual interpretation about anything save addressing the logical construction and accuracy of DIVINE JOY's statement.

Anything that went beyond dealing strictly with the idea of whether God "won" (and thereby "lost" or forfeited) the "reigns" was something I didn't ask. Neither does you inserted (i.e. unsolicited) "spiritual interpretation" deal with the title-question I posed.

You've spent more time either contradicting yourself or saying things uncalled for than dealing with what I did ask. Then you act like you can't understand what I asked.

You've approached this situation as if you disagreed with me when you have, in fact, disagreed with Divine Joy. That point of disagreement is the very reason why I raised the question in the first place. Obviously, since you didn't take issue with what Divine Joy said your intentions were not to voice something that would contradict what she said but you wanted to somehow show opposition to what I said which, as noted, you didn't because you have essentially disagreed with her characterization - which again was the impetus of my question in the first place.

If that's not the case... what were all your posts for?

Again, I didn't ask you for a spiritual interpretation. If you were honest, you would acknowledge how you were trying to erect a rationale to justify and support what Divine Joy said. You were trying to make a case against my questioning but couldn't. Everything I've said in terms of why I asked the question I did you've essentially agreed with. But, since you know I don't buy all of what you believe about Jesus... you felt the need to ON YOUR OWN insert Christian Rhetoric or Doctrine (and your interpretations of them).

Try sticking to the task at hand.

Again, if you have a problem with the idea of someone saying Did God "lost" control over (life and) death then you issue is with D.J. and, again, NOT ME! She made the WIN (vs. LOSE) comment. I merely questioned in a way to show the same type of disagreement you're voicing.

The idea is just preposterous, metaphorically or otherwise. But you know you still feel more aligned with D.J.'s views therefore you go through this game where you first tried to rationalize (and thereby approving of) what D.J. said... now, when pressed you can't do anything but give a straight, non-convoluted answer.

So, no, I have no reason to "agree" with such a convoluted mix of things where you're trying to play both sides of the fence but still act like you're disagreeing with me.... even when you're contradicting what D.J. said.

Her statement, NOT MINE, implied that God "lost" or otherwise did not have control over the "reigns". You immediately followed that with a statement essentially agreeing with her's only adding that it was Man, not Satan who held the "reigns".

Please try the DOUBLE-SPEAK with someone who gets caught up in rhetoric. The question was about the SOVEREIGNTY of GOD, its meaning with no other implications about "sin" or Jesus-as-Savior.

Very narrow and easy topic to access/assess. No other mess necessary but we see you felt the need to insert it.
quote:
Did God ever lose control over life and death?
NO

Then explain your first statement:
IMO losing the reigns is a metaphor. I believe he "lost" the reigns when He entrusted his creation with control over their destiny and themselves.

Right there you said GOD "lost" the reigns... Metaphor or not, that's what you said. You even said, in essence, God "lost" control... because he basically gave that "control" to Man.

And as for all the other stuff you said, it seems you are not being particularly honest when you say you won't try to speak for her. That was hardly the spirit of your initial comments. You attempted to explain what she said that's why you talked about Jesus, sin, this, that, etc. Because SHE did. Somehow you felt you needed to add that because you thought my question, which said nothing about Jesus and sin, was attacking or showing some kind of misunderstanding about Jesus.

HERE is the statement that brought us to this point. The portions highlighted below and ONLY those highlighted constitute what I questioned:
    God the Creator is Spirit. He came as Jesus to walk a sinless life to win the reigns of death from Satan.
Got that?

GOD...WIN the reigns of death from Satan.

That was the ONLY thing I questioned with regard to her statement. That was the only thing requiring you attention since you choose to respond. The fact that you chose to say other things and tried to explain or give an "interpretation" about something other than that simple "Does That Makes Sense?" only shows how you had other intentions outside of earnestly addressing what I asked.

Demonstrated TRUTH of that... This BS:
You sin you die. With Christ their is no death, there is no condemnation.

Again, save the rhetoric...
The best answer provided was by Kresge, I bow before your post of April 04. First it was on topic and second it tried to answer the question posted. I will add that Trinitarian doctrine came about at the council of Nicene in the Forth century A.D. As pointed out by Kresge there were numerous ideas about godhead and Jesus and all matters theological floating about at the time. The early fathers of the Christian church were in deep disagreement with other. There was so much confusion that the Roman Emperor at the time called all of the bishops of the church together to come up with the correct thinking on matters divine. This correct thinking became "Orthodoxy" This Orthodoxy was used to suppress the heresy of the day which was Arianism.( FYI Arius denied the divinity of Jesus.) If history had taken a different turn Nmaginate would be scratching his head over the contradictions of Arian Christianity. So goes the world.
Many great minds have tried to justify the trinity by logic alone, tried and failed. Trinitarianism is an article of faith, or as the Catholics put it a mystery of faith. It can not be arrived at in a logical manner, you either buy into it or you don't.

P.S. Devine Joy were have you gone? Come out and PLAY! heart
quote:
If history had taken a different turn Nmaginate would be scratching his head over the contradictions of Arian Christianity.
SPIN, fyi... I'm not "scratching" my head over anything. I merely asked a question. Perhaps you can call it rhetorical because both the things you and KRESGE have said I am aware of, Arianism included.

quote:
It can not be arrived at in a logical manner, you either buy into it or you don't.
Well, that about sums it up. Doesn't it? tongue lol

Answers like KRESGE were, in fact, what I was looking for because I essentially asked about the history of the idea, how it developed and became what it is today. I also purposely attempted to use his knowledge on the subject to check or verify things I've come across that contend with the idea.

All of that was done in the initial exchange before Divine Joy's comment. I merely questioned here statement which by now has been thoroughly documented... about God "winning" (or "losing") the reigns of Death from Satan. That was not a Trinity question.

Questions I ask are not because of a lack of understanding in terms of being ignorant of the prevailing rationales people make. I didn't question Divine Joy about the Trinity. I questioned her about the SOVEREIGNTY and sanctity of GOD.
Why did you ignore the quotations around lost? I put them there for a reason. I thought that quotations weren't always taken so literally, my mistake.

Even still I reserve my right to think metaphorically. Nimrod campaigned and Christ campaigned. What do politicians do? They win the hearts of the people. (notice no quotations this time)

Why would Christ have to win our hearts if he is Sovereign? When did He lose our hearts? How did He lose our hearts?

Maybe you should ask these questions since you clearly suggest that we were created automatons.

If you can't tie these things together then it is clear that you only use half of your brain.
hearts = reigns, does that make any since? Does the concept of us being guided by the intents of our hearts bear any significance in this discussion?

If you can agree with that then would you agree that sin in our hearts was leading us to death?
You know the whole uncalled for "You sin you die statement". We can stop here.

I'm sure I'll lose you with more uncalled for statements, but as you can see I'm full of em'.
So God, being Sovereign saw that man had "lost their everlasting minds", came down and provided them access into His kingdom, through Christ. Thus we had to give Him reign over our hearts.

I apologize for appearing to proselatyze, but obviously I didn't leave enough crumbs, so you couldn't follow. I've backtracked as best as I could to were I think you might have gotten lost. If not... Sorry bout it.
HeruStar,
More breadcrumbs please Confused
Was the Nimrod post of April 20 totally allegorical?
I see the thread of the mystery of free will here but is that where you're trying to go?
What does Bacchus / Dionysus have do with this? Are they stand ins for Chaos? How did man free himself from the bonds of godliness? Why would he want to do that? And seeing as god is Omnipotent and Omniscient isn't he still ultimately responsible for our bad behavior? I'm realy trying to understand your point of view here thanks
Thank You bsm

The Nimrod post is no allegory. He was a notorious leader mostly credited for his skill in war. Cush was his father, another mortal. Cush was also known as Bel/Baal "The Great Confounder" or god of Confusion. He was supposed to be the one that scattered all the nations at the tower of Babel. <--Chaos/Khus

Nimrod was the "Mighty Prince" the "Horned bull" that as I stated was deified in death, Son of God; to Greeks as Bacchus and to Khamitians as Ausar.

"...not content with delivering men from the fear of wild beast, he set work also to emancipate them from the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom and in which alone true happiness can be found"---Alexander Hisop, 'The Two Babylons'

I steered as far as I could away from the concept of free will.

I hope that short paragraph answered some of those questions

but as far as...
quote:
And seeing as god is Omnipotent and Omniscient isn't he still ultimately responsible for our bad behavior?


My answer is, even if He was responsible, which of us has the authority to hold Him accountable?
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Anyways Nmaginate you're a real intelligent dude. Why do you keep making me say the same things over and over? If you see "holes in my logic", point em' out. I would sincerely appreciate it.
Dude your errors were in EVERYTHING you said that was beside the simple question-point I made.

The point of my question and the only answer it required was a simple straightforward one. A straightforward answer that would explain why some silly stuff, metaphorically or otherwise, would be said about GOD (not Jesus), that's completely counter to anything god-like.

All throughout this thread you've agreed that GOD did not "lose" the reigns. And actually reigns = control or power over. There are on-line dictionaries at your disposal. Inserting some Reigns = Hearts BS only complicates the matter for you...

Anyway, it is pretty silly for the Created to try to say the Creator has to perform some act the way the Created would have to. GOD, the Creator... THE ALL POWERFUL doesn't have to "win" anything. So what's with the foolishness of the Created attributing BS like that to GOD, however you want to say it?

And I've already pointed out how you tried to explain away what D.J. said, essentially, agreeing with what she said but when questioned you've shown that you don't agree with it. So it is your INCONSISTENCY that I have pointed out.

And we won't even touch the NIMROD BS.
I would sincerely appreciate it if you could focus on the actual topic. You know... what you called yourself responding to.
quote:
Why would Christ have to win our hearts if he is Sovereign?
Where did Christ get put into this?

We were talking about GOD the Creator of All The Worlds. Even by your scripture Christ is not that god. He was the "Word". Now you can say by virtue of your scripture Christ was "with GOD" but it does not say Christ was the CREATOR and, hence, SOVEREIGN.

None of you Trinitarians have or can establish the Trinity As Truth (if we take SpinCity's word for it). So you can't and won't get by making a question/comment that presupposes something that only you believe.

If you want to do that then steer clear of discussions were people don't subscribe to your beliefs.

And the question isn't merely why...
WHY would GOD have to? I'm not aware of scriptures that say GOD has to seek us, so to speak. It is best for us to seek him.

It's definitely not a matter of GOD convincing us that we need him or he needs us. It's a matter of us convincing ourselves of how wise it is for our own well-being to seek GOD.

Anyway... The Title-Question is: Is Jesus = GOD.
As far as one blatant error you've just made is, as I just pointed out, saying... presupposing that JESUS is equal, co-equal, interchangeably GOD without laying out reasoning why that is so, in your opinion. It's a bit of Circular Reasoning if anything...

So, if you don't want to address the topical things said here then, of course, all other discourse you regurgitate will be dismissed as BS.

So, I sincerely hope you will find the ability to actually say something relevant to the topical themes here.
quote:
Anyways Nmaginate you're a real intelligent dude. Why do you keep making me say the same things over and over?
I don't keep making you say anything. I keep trying to get you to cut all the off-topic-bullshit and address the question at hand, acknowledge your contradictions and/or how you did not address my question when you say things contradictory.

Those things have been highlighted.
I asked a simple question. One that in no wise solicited or logically elicited any of your DOCTRINAL rhetoric. It was just that simple.

You didn't have to say anything but what directly addressed the very simple question I asked. When you inserted other unsolicited BS then you were "made" to explain why you inserted that BS or "made" understand that BS was irrelevant - i.e. uncalled for; aka unsolicited and not an area of concern or interest.
So Nimrod was a historical person!? Do you realize that the Nimrod story in Genesis was used by apologist for Slavery!? What sources other than the bible mention him? Please don't mention Alexander Hislop's book as it " has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence" (Wikipedia) Mr. Hislop had a very large Anti-Catholic ax to grind. At least that's what Wikipedia has to say. Bacchus was the ROMAN god of the vine ,Dionysus the GREEK god of the vine. As far as I know via my web resources Bacchus / Dionysus was never a living breathing man.
Nmaginate, please don't lump me in with the Trinitarians, I never said I "bought into" that view.
Second look at my question about "Ultimate responsibility" and the questions that proceeded. Specifically look at the questions "How did man free himself from the bonds of godliness? Why would he want to do that?" (Which by the way were never answered.) These were your questions formulated in different way. Granted you were hammering away at what you saw as B.S. and I was trying to understand HuruStar's point of view but still the same questions. In his only answer that was on point (Ultimate Responsibility) was a repeat of God's answer to Job i.e. " listen I'm the Big G and you're just a lump of uppity mud that's gotten too big for his britches, I don't have to explain jack to you pipsqueak!" The Big G was never strong on reason. Big Grin
Not lumping you in with it at all. I took your comments as one of a non-biased observer, more or less. As an objective source who said, "at best, the Trinity is something that can't be proven (or disproven)." I didn't take your comment about the Logic & the Trinity as anything against what I've said and I fully understood the nature of your questions to Heru and their similarity to mine.

Of course, HERU didn't call me Nimrod as a compliment. But that only shows his Inadequacy Issues, IMO.
Last edited {1}
This is ridiculous.

A merry-go-round of semantics and confused opinions that is making me nauseous. In this Jesus = God post, my main source is ofcourse the Bible and my interpretations of it. Attack that with your own source instead of this "balancing act"of opinions.

Your only source is the Literal translation of a spiritual book. When somebody seeks the Dictionary to define Truth and God, I can't help but scratch my head. If it were that easy, then why the post? Who does the dictionary say that Jesus is? That's your answer.

Is this a religous post or not? If so then it IS a battle of DOCTRINES, not DICTION/Language/or heavily opioniated connotations.

I'll say this to make you feel better. My DOCTRINE is BS and your connotations are TRUTH.

HAIL Nmaginate!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:
I'll say this to make you feel better. My DOCTRINE is BS and your connotations are TRUTH.
Stop PROJECTING... You are the one who desires things to make you feel better (a la Nimrod=Nmaginate).

Hmmm... It would seem that if a person uses even a literal translation of a "spiritual" book then they too have a "source".

I have no idea what this "Balancing Act Of Opinions" is. HERU when you talk about YOUR interpretations those are your OPINIONS. DOCTRINES, too, are OPINIONS.

So what is your point?
Beside the fact that you want to feel like YOUR OPINIONS about the Bible are warranted when you can't even conclusively verify them by the Bible itself. It is your DOCTRINE not so much the Bible that informs your interpretive view - i.e. OPINION about what the Bible is saying.

So, obviously, you have an issue with your own Bible and extracting CONSISTENT, functional, plausible, reasonable, rational, logical meaning from it and not just accepting regurgitated and recycled OPINIONS that have been passed down for generations without examining the veracity of the claims within those Doctrinal/Interpretive OPINIONS.

When you say GOD is SOVEREIGN that means something. The dictionary is employed so that the actual meaning of the terms used are fully understood. You didn't seem to have a problem with that. In fact, you said "This is a perfect definition."

So now you want to curse the dictionary... Pretty freakin' curious.

quote:
Who does the dictionary say that Jesus is? That's your answer.
BULLSHIT!
Don't cry because your opinionated DOCTRINE is not only not supported by your source but also something that defies all common sense and logic... and shall I say again, it is CONTRADICTED by your source - aka The Bible.

So, it is the BIBLE and the meaning of terms, concepts and ideas in the Bible that has been BALANCED to "attack" your DOCTRINE which you obviously have no defense.

Quit crying HERU... If you want to speak to Who Jesus is and how Jesus = God, then go right ahead. You can start by fully and earnestly addressing this here:
quote:
We were talking about GOD the Creator of All The Worlds. Even by your scripture Christ is not that god. He was the "Word". Now you can say by virtue of your scripture Christ was "with GOD" but it does not say Christ was the CREATOR and, hence, SOVEREIGN.
Quote me a scripture -- and not your DOCTRINE or extra-biblical Interpretations... synchrono?? lol -- that says JESUS was The Creator.

As I asked D.J., why did JESUS say "Worship The FATHER" if he wasn't making a distinction between himself and GOD (THE CREATOR)?

It seems that your own source works against you, HERU. There are other interpretations that can be taken from your Bible, obviously.

So, please help us all out here. When it comes to Literal Translations and "Spiritual" ones which one takes precedence over the other and when do we know which one is appropriate or applicable in which situations.

I mean... surely you don't mean to tell me you don't take any scriptures in the Bible literal. Thou Shalt Not Kill. I'm sure you take that literal with no qualms about it. What is the criteria for when it is adviseable to forego a literal "translation" of a scripture and take a "spiritual" view and upon what do you judge whether that spiritual view is appropriate, accurate, etc.?

In other words, quit using WEAK defenses built on ideas of yours that are way more subjective than anything you can fathom coming from those of us who don't drink your Kool-Aid.
These loaded questions are mixing concepts. I'll help you out and seperate the questions into single-answered concepts for you.

What do Jesus being the "Word" of God mean to you?

If your God is THE CREATOR (single-entity), how could Jesus be The Creator too?

Why would a Soverign(single-entity) God(single-entity) require assistance in creating anything?

To this I say, somebody was with God.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."


Who was with God?

17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Matthew 19:29 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

By what authority? Can I come to your house and invite all my friends and tell the to tell you that I sent them? Wouldn't you quickly tell them what to do with themselves, find me, and have me arrested?

What manner of mortal man can do so? What kind of prophet holds that authority? If He is not as God then what is He?

I know you could careless about those questions. Just like you could care less if Jesus = God or seeking truth for that matter. That's why the post, your pathetic attempt at confounding others.

That one question (Jesus = God) can take route in an infinite amount of directions?

The post is your joke, and I'm no longer entertained or amused.

I'm over it.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

FYI-
While theologically many Christians read this as a reference to the Trinity, scholars of the history of religions as well as most contemporary biblical scholars point to this as early Hebrew henotheism which eventually develops into a strict monotheism.
quote:
That's why the post, your pathetic attempt at confounding others.
So that's what you meant by your NIMROD comments. Actually, I took that in another direction. Seems as if you're only speaking from your own insecurities and inadequacies.

Funny how I do see neither KRESGE nor SpinCity referring to me as the "Confounder". Funny how you ascribe such a motive to me. But that's not even all of it... look at this:
quote:
I know you could careless about those questions. Just like you could care less if Jesus = God or seeking truth for that matter.
Now tell me how have you determined that I don't care to seek "the truth"? And by what standard, what means do you make that determination?

quote:
To this I say, somebody was with God.
Anyway... HERU you can't spin my IS JESUS = GOD question into something in favor of your otherwise unapproachable idea. That's particularly complicated by the fact that I already said that by your own scripture you can say that Jesus, "the WORD", was "WITH" GOD. So you quoted all those scriptures with "US", etc.? FOR WHAT????

Saying someone was "WITH" GOD doesn't answer the question of whether JESUS = GOD.

quote:
If He is not as God then what is He?
HERU, you must be confused. You can't simultaneously say or rather try to make a case for JESUS = GOD while at the same time arguing, as you have, "plainly somebody was with God."

So it seems you've pretty much narrowed it down. Whoever/whatever JESUS IS... He is not God. You argued it yourself, more or less, that JESUS WAS WITH GOD.

So what were you saying?

Umm.... WHAT DOES YOUR SCRIPTURE SAY HE WAS?

Again, when Jesus says in YOUR SCRIPTURE "worship THE FATHER" what does that scripture say in terms of whether JESUS = GOD?

I mean... that is your source, right?
Where in your scripture do you find support for the idea that JESUS = GOD?

Again, JESUS being "with" GOD does not constitute him being GOD. If you're "with" a woman, intimately or otherwise, does that make you via/after that intimacy a woman?

I ask you WHY THE GYMNASTICS?
If JESUS was God? Why didn't he say so?
I mean... he could have done it after the Biblical Resurrection... on Easter Sunday.

Better yet, if Jesus = GOD in your book (i.e. your mind)? Why does your book, the Bible, record him as possessing less than God-like attributes? Or rather why did Jesus not possess God-like attributes/abilities?
quote:
  • Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

  • Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

  • But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Matthew 24: 34-36
Hmmm.... Jesus has said (1) that the TRUE WORSHIPPERS worship THE FATHER and (2) when it comes the Second Coming or the End Of The World only THE FATHER, not anyone else... only THE FATHER knows.

Now was JESUS = THE FATHER?
Your DOCTRINE teaches he was "The SON"?
And you try to claim I'm the one CONFOUNDING things? lol
quote:
  • Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

  • Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

  • But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Matthew 24: 34-36
Hmmm.... Jesus has said (1) that the TRUE WORSHIPPERS worship THE FATHER and (2) when it comes the Second Coming or the End Of The World only THE FATHER, not anyone else... only THE FATHER knows.

Now was JESUS = THE FATHER?
Your DOCTRINE teaches he was "The SON"?
And you try to claim I'm the one CONFOUNDING things? lol


I've shown this to you once, and you refuse to acknowledge it...
29 -My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30- I and my Father are one. - John 10:29-30



You are so correct ThaWatcher...
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2:14
HeruStar. You ask by " what authority" well by God's authority. I'm only following your logic here. Remember God is Sovereign by your own admission. As a Sovereign deity he can delegate his authority as he sees fit. Jesus can only be described as an agent of God not God himself. He EARNED the privileged of sitting on his "father's throne" from God. He sits with God but is not God. Otherwise he would talk about HIS throne. So the Quote from Matthew proves nothing about Jesus=God.
"What do Jesus being the "Word" of God mean to you?" To me it means that Plato has snuck into the Christian house via the back door of John. That's the short answer. We have the "word" of God and the word with God, we have alpha and omega but not God himself.

If you want to toss out some holy hand grenades from King James how about "Hear ye O Israel the Lord is One God. Or "I am the Lord thy God thou shalt have no other Gods before me?" We can spend the rest of lives hurling these missives about and come no closer to any understanding. Sorry, the KJV can be used to support any philosophy about the divinity of Christ or lack of same that you prefer. Point of fact the bible can be used to justify almost ANY philosophy or social construct out there, Afro-Centric or White-Power, Pro or Anti Slavery, Republican or Democratic, Fascist or Libertarian.

You talk about "A merry-go-round of semantics and confused opinions that is making me nauseous." Well, you did purchase a ticket for this ride by tossing in your two bits originally. And before stepping on you seemed to have chowed down on some very indigestible dogma washed down with sugar-water philosophy. I strongly recommend you counteract this with the Pepto-Bismol of reason. I am talking metaphorically here of course.
Razz

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×