Jesus is not God

[Redemptionsong]

God, through the work of Jesus Christ, is my savior.

Interpretation is way over blown. For example, did you need to interpret that simple statement? I trust you didn't. It is very simple assertion. Maybe it is true or maybe it isn't, but it certainly didn't take much straining to understand what I meant. I didn't have to ponder the meaning of your reply. All the words and sentences you wrote were very simple to understand. Most everything we read is just like that. It simply says what it means and means what it says.

The problem comes when we interject ideas into the scriptures that simply are not there. When that is done, it becomes necessary to "bend" simple scriptural concepts to fit those unwarranted ideas that are really not there.

Of course there is:

2 Pet 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
​

This specifically says that no one individual has the right to interpret anything. So where does that leave us? Either there is no way we can understand the scriptures or they simply interpret themselves. Personally, I vote for the latter. The scriptures do indeed interpret themselves, so there is no need for me, you, or anybody else to do so.

Here is a good example of the above:

Matt 27:46,

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
​

Why would God wonder where His God went? Makes no sense. On the other hand, if Jesus is not God, then it is easy to understand that he was talking to God. He was quoting Psalm 22 in which David was having a hard time and so he was wondering where God went. It is not unusual for any believer to get discouraged and maybe even have a moment's doubt. I mean, David was the king of God's chosen people and even he got discouraged at times. But if you read the whole Psalm, the question was answered; God went nowhere, He was with David the whole time and in the end caused him to win the victory, which is what God always does.

It's rather amazing to know that at his absolute worse hour Jesus laser focused on the scriptures. It is worth remembering that Jesus asked God 3 times if there was some other way of redeeming us other than being crucified. Of course he ended up saying, "Not my will, but thine be done." God does not have multiple personalities, each with it's own will. No. Jesus had his will and God had His own will. It is clear they were not the same will. Jesus wanted one thing (not to die) and God wanted another thing (Jesus to die). It is sooooo simple. How do Christians miss it????

In any case, if we simply read it as written it makes perfect sense. Jesus was a man, and he talked to our God the same way we all do. It is also clear that he had a completely separate will than did God. One has to do some mighty fancy word twisting, i.e. interpretation, to make Jesus and God one and the same essence, person, or any other word dreamed up at the council of Nicea. When read it as written, it is clear there are two completely separate individuals here, Jesus and God.

I know it is said that it was the "man part" of Jesus that asked God to let the cup pass, that it was the "man part" that momentarily doubted God's presence, that it was the "man part" that spoke to God. Well, my friend, interjecting the words "man part" into the scriptures is nothing less than "one's own interpretation" which we've seen is exactly what 2 Peter 1:21 tells us not to do. Since there is no mention whatsoever of a "man part" of Jesus in the scriptures, it is only one's private interpretation worming it's way where it doesn't belong. It does nothing but screw up an otherwise beautiful narrative and makes a largely incomprehensible jumbo out of it. No wonder few can agree on anything in the scriptures! They don't even understand the natures of the two leading characters! They don't even accept that there are two leading characters! They make the two (three - makes things even worse) into one!

The basic reason then for the divisions is private interpretation. Sadly far too many Christians have more respect for tradition than for the scriptures. I certainly don't blame nor condemn anyone who does so (that is Jesus' job), but I do understand that it is not God's will to be that way. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught, not even those who do the teaching. We have had 2,000 of error regarding the nature of God and Jesus, and 2,000 years of error taught as truth is not easy to overcome. However, I believe that once someone hears the truth, they no longer have an excuse for believing tradition over that truth.

When Paul preached at Corinth they wanted to kill him because he taught things that went against their 4,000 year old doctrine. They refused to accept the changes that Jesus brought. Furthermore, they wanted to kill him even before he was done preaching. In other words, they spent no time at all checking to see if Paul may have been on to something.

Escaping from Corinth, Paul went to Berea and preached the same message to them. What was their reaction?

Acts 17:11,

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
​

They searched the scriptures daily to verify if what Paul told them was true of not. They spent some time doing so, daily means at least 2 days, but I'd suspect probably more. I am always amazed that when I write something that I know people have never heard before, they come back immediately with, "you of full of ...." Well, that just tells me they are more like the Corinthians than the Bereans. Not much I can do about that.

There was a time when I believed Jesus was God. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and had 1 hour of religion classes 5 days a week. They told me Jesus was God and I believed it. It raised a lot of questions in my mind when I read things like God knew things Jesus didn't know, that Jesus died and God couldn't die, and much much more, but I just accepted what I was taught. One day a friend came and told me the same things I'm telling you. Did I immediately forget all I had learned in my religion classes and believe that Jesus really was the son of God and not God Himself? No, I didn't. But neither did I act like the Corinthians and demand the head of my friend on a platter. Instead I went all Berean and searched, not my catechism or prayer book, but the scriptures themselves. It took time, study, and effort, but I was finally forced to realize that the scriptures themselves, apart from any interpretation, make a clear, unmistakable distinction between God and His son, Jesus Christ. And not once seeing the word "essence" in the scriptures themselves, I was able to see the whole "3 persons in one essence" concept was nothing less than the grandest coup the devil has foisted (to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant. Mirian-Webster) upon the Christian church.

Go Berean my friend and you won't regret it!

I can assure you that I have been 'Berean' for many years, but the fruit of my studies is not unitarianism!

I'm very happy to discuss this issue using the scriptures alone.

I hope you don't mind, therefore, that I ask a few more questions to elicit the scriptural basis of your beliefs.

If you believe that God is your Saviour, how do you understand the role of Jesus in your salvation? In what sense is Jesus' 'divine nature' not 'all the fulness of the Godhead bodily'?

 

[rrobs]

I can assure you that I have been 'Berean' for many years, but the fruit of my studies is not unitarianism!

I'm very happy to discuss this issue using the scriptures alone.

I hope you don't mind, therefore, that I ask a few more questions to elicit the scriptural basis of your beliefs.

If you believe that God is your Saviour, how do you understand the role of Jesus in your salvation? In what sense is Jesus' 'divine nature' not 'all the fulness of the Godhead bodily'?

Jesus was the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. He said that seed would be from the offspring of the woman. God also went to great detail to explain seed in Genesis chapter 1. Basically, all life, plant and animal, has seed and that seed always produces an offspring with the same nature as it's parent. Jesus was declared over and over to have come from the seed of David. Since they were human, so would the promised seed be human.

I know many say that only God could redeem man. I don't see how that fits with Romans.

Rom 5:12-15,

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

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.

15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
​

If these verses don't say that both sin and redemption came by men, I don't know what it means. It is nothing less than interpretation to change the word "man" in verse 15 to "God," or "god man," but that is apparently what many do. It says that sin came by man and so did our redemption. If some want to cling to the idea that only God can redeem us then there is a lot of scripture that must be changed. The words "by one man" in verse 15 would have to say, "by one God" instead.

Why do you suppose Jesus is called the "second Adam?" The first one was neither God nor a god-man. If Jesus were God or a god-man then he'd be nothing at all like the first Adam. Nor would God or a god-man be tempted in any way, shape, or form like us. Do you feel like part God when you are tempted? Well if the scriptures are true and Jesus really was tempted in all point just like the rest of us (Heb 4:15), then neither could he be God. To say otherwise makes Hebrews 4:15 ludicrous, something I sure don't want to cause.

1Cor 15:21,

For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.​

To fit with the man made doctrine hammered out at the Council of Nicea, it becomes necessary to change this verse also, "For since by man [came] death, by God [came] also the resurrection of the dead."

If having a divine nature makes one God, we really need to rethink things in a major way.

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
​

Since we also have a divine nature, are we also God? I would be loathe to make such a declaration. Apparently, having a divine nature simply means having the same nature as one's Father. In this case, since both Jesus and us have God as our Father, it simply means we have His nature which is divine. No need to make either Jesus or us actually God. All of that fits in with the idea of seed I mentioned above.

Col 2:9,

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
​

Does that say Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead? No, it says that that fullness of the Godhead dwells in him. According to Colossians 1:27, Christ dwells in us. Does that make us Christ? If so, and Jesus is God, then Col 1:27 says we are God. Apparently one thing being inside of another does not make the two one and the same thing. I'm just letting the scriptures speak for themselves. I'm not introducing the trinity into the equation which is the only way we can change the meaning of one thing being in another to mean the two are one and the same, i.e. God. That is private interpretation to the max! All that is needed is to accepted the normal meaning of one little word, "in," and the true meaning can easily be ascertained. Christ is in me, but I sure ain't Christ!

It is also private interpretation to say that having a divine nature makes that person God. That's certainly not what the scriptures themselves would indicate. Again, it is necessary to bring extraneous ideas into the equation to make it say having the nature of one's parent makes them their own parent. It requires a complete redefinition of the word "nature."

I have no doubt you've studied the scriptures. I also have little doubt that you've heard the things I'm saying, in the way I'm saying them (never taught in the orthodox church), so I think it fair to say you are not searching the scriptures to see if the particular things I'm saying are true or not. I know you are not based on the speed of your reply.

I've already heard everything you are saying many times over. However, I've done plenty enough of my own study to know they are not what the scriptures themselves say. I'm not criticizing, just pointing it out. I'm not your judge. Besides, I know God loves you every bit as me, regardless of our different reading of the scripture. If I understand the difficulty of overcoming 2,000 years of tradition, I'm quite sure God understands it many times over.

God bless.

 

[rational experiences]

In natural Earth laws science knew in science that Earth as stone was relative to the pressure applied to gases in natural history.

For you own all the stories of telling about the history of space, and the presence of stone, as God.

Claiming as you did Mother of God, space he said is a womb. Empty of any body, mass owned no space, mass was natural and stone formed as a released body of gases, smaller bodies and spatial pressure cooled the gases and formed stone.

So you know the LAW of the presence of stone is about pressure.

Science, natural humans talking about natural presence first. God he said is the stone philosophy.

Common sense, the Earth gases cannot pressurize in science laws to become stone.

Teaching......the God planet stone is not the same as the history of atmospheric stone released gases. Relativity teaching.

Pressure applied to heavenly gases do not produce stone, God.

Therefore if you change the held pressure of natural stone, the Earth gases will burn out.

The spatial womb cold history owns the presence of stone. If you apply a huge amount of radiated heated conversion, then space cannot support a cold atmospheric gas spiritual body to remain present in a heated spatial body.

Why the relativity Mother of God as spatial womb was an old science teaching of natural law.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Jesus was the promised seed of Genesis 3:15. He said that seed would be from the offspring of the woman. God also went to great detail to explain seed in Genesis chapter 1. Basically, all life, plant and animal, has seed and that seed always produces an offspring with the same nature as it's parent. Jesus was declared over and over to have come from the seed of David. Since they were human, so would the promised seed be human.

I know many say that only God could redeem man. I don't see how that fits with Romans.

Rom 5:12-15,

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

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.

15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
​

If these verses don't say that both sin and redemption came by men, I don't know what it means. It is nothing less than interpretation to change the word "man" in verse 15 to "God," or "god man," but that is apparently what many do. It says that sin came by man and so did our redemption. If some want to cling to the idea that only God can redeem us then there is a lot of scripture that must be changed. The words "by one man" in verse 15 would have to say, "by one God" instead.

Why do you suppose Jesus is called the "second Adam?" The first one was neither God nor a god-man. If Jesus were God or a god-man then he'd be nothing at all like the first Adam. Nor would God or a god-man be tempted in any way, shape, or form like us. Do you feel like part God when you are tempted? Well if the scriptures are true and Jesus really was tempted in all point just like the rest of us (Heb 4:15), then neither could he be God. To say otherwise makes Hebrews 4:15 ludicrous, something I sure don't want to cause.

1Cor 15:21,

For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.​

To fit with the man made doctrine hammered out at the Council of Nicea, it becomes necessary to change this verse also, "For since by man [came] death, by God [came] also the resurrection of the dead."

If having a divine nature makes one God, we really need to rethink things in a major way.

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
​

Since we also have a divine nature, are we also God? I would be loathe to make such a declaration. Apparently, having a divine nature simply means having the same nature as one's Father. In this case, since both Jesus and us have God as our Father, it simply means we have His nature which is divine. No need to make either Jesus or us actually God. All of that fits in with the idea of seed I mentioned above.

Col 2:9,

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
​

Does that say Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead? No, it says that that fullness of the Godhead dwells in him. According to Colossians 1:27, Christ dwells in us. Does that make us Christ? If so, and Jesus is God, then Col 1:27 says we are God. Apparently one thing being inside of another does not make the two one and the same thing. I'm just letting the scriptures speak for themselves. I'm not introducing the trinity into the equation which is the only way we can change the meaning of one thing being in another to mean the two are one and the same, i.e. God. That is private interpretation to the max! All that is needed is to accepted the normal meaning of one little word, "in," and the true meaning can easily be ascertained. Christ is in me, but I sure ain't Christ!

It is also private interpretation to say that having a divine nature makes that person God. That's certainly not what the scriptures themselves would indicate. Again, it is necessary to bring extraneous ideas into the equation to make it say having the nature of one's parent makes them their own parent. It requires a complete redefinition of the word "nature."

I have no doubt you've studied the scriptures. I also have little doubt that you've heard the things I'm saying, in the way I'm saying them (never taught in the orthodox church), so I think it fair to say you are not searching the scriptures to see if the particular things I'm saying are true or not. I know you are not based on the speed of your reply.

I've already heard everything you are saying many times over. However, I've done plenty enough of my own study to know they are not what the scriptures themselves say. I'm not criticizing, just pointing it out. I'm not your judge. Besides, I know God loves you every bit as me, regardless of our different reading of the scripture. If I understand the difficulty of overcoming 2,000 years of tradition, I'm quite sure God understands it many times over.

God bless.

It seems to me that you have reduced Jesus Christ to the level of man, when the scriptures teach that he was without sin. If all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, what does that make Jesus Christ?

The community of believers in Christ are called the Body of Christ, and although each is limited in spiritual stature by their faith, they all partake of the one Spirit of Christ. The difference between the head, Christ, and the body, the Church, is one of faith. The faith of God in Christ never fails. The faith of each individual member of the Body has limitations. Jesus received the Spirit of God WITHOUT MEASURE. This says something about his faith. Christ's spiritual body is made up of individuals, each of whom receive the spirit BY MEASURE OF FAITH.

I believe that the position you place yourself in is a very difficult position to maintain. Can you genuinely claim to have God as your saviour, when God does not come to earth to save?

 

[rrobs]

It seems to me that you have reduced Jesus Christ to the level of man, when the scriptures teach that he was without sin. If all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, what does that make Jesus Christ?

I'm near nearly smart enough to have written Acts 2:22, Rom 5:15, 1 Tim 2:5, and a few others that say without one ounce of ambiguity that Jesus was a man.

As far as Jesus being with sin, it is very true he did not ever sin, but he could have since he was tempted just like you or I. Do you feel it is impossible for you to sin whenever you are tempted? I don't think so, or your temptation would be nothing at all like his temptations. I might also remind you that God can not be tempted. I would also remind you that Jesus bore all or our sins, and therefore it is not true to say he was without sin. He bore those sins and suffered the consequences of them, i.e. death, because he loved us just that much.

I believe that the position you place yourself in is a very difficult position to maintain. Can you genuinely claim to have God as your saviour, when God does not come to earth to save?

All in all, I'd say it is much harder to maintain the position that Jesus is God than not. You have to explain how God knew things Jesus didn't know (Mark 13:32), how God had a God (John 20:17, Eph 1:17), how God could not do anything without God (John 5:30), how God died, how God was tempted (Jas 1:13), why God would have to confer judgment to Himself (John 5:22), how God could be like us (Heb 2:17), how God could be greater than God (John 14:28), and much more. A bunch more. I, on the other hand, can just read all of these scriptures and simply believe what they say. No need to twist simple words or concepts to conform with the man made doctrine hammered out at a council (Nicea) composed largely of Platonic loving so-called church fathers. They were quite enamored with Greek philosophy and Egyptian mysticism. That is a pure fact of church history that can not be denied. I have no use whatsoever for their doctrine. I like the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures.

 

[rational experiences]

It seems to me that you have reduced Jesus Christ to the level of man, when the scriptures teach that he was without sin. If all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, what does that make Jesus Christ?

The community of believers in Christ are called the Body of Christ, and although each is limited in spiritual stature by their faith, they all partake of the one Spirit of Christ. The difference between the head, Christ, and the body, the Church, is one of faith. The faith of God in Christ never fails. The faith of each individual member of the Body has limitations. Christ received the Spirit of God WITHOUT MEASURE. This says something about his faith. Christ's spiritual body is made up of individuals, each of whom receive the spirit BY MEASURE OF FAITH.

I believe that the position you place yourself in is a very difficult position to maintain. Can you genuinely claim to have God as your saviour, when God does not come to earth to save?

The science story of the ancients defined Earth as a stone planet, whose volcanoes as mountains erupted, put gases into cold empty out of space, that cooled by their own volition and own no measure. As a science law for living on Planet Earth.

Seeing science says it lives by rules and laws of observance as the status science.

The Sun was historically stated to own the Saviour stone history. Being of a larger body of gas mass, that when it ejected out is gases like Earth had in cooling, that its stone was a variation to Earth stone. Simply due to conditions of mass.

Hence releasing asteroid wandering star stone was a colder gas than what God the Earth owned, why they never stated God to be the wandering star Saviour.

Therefore the teachings said, the Saviour gases saved Earth from the Sun. So if you keep heating up UFO cold radiation metals by forcing it to re enter Earth natural day of light, burning gases.....which is the sacrifice of the spirit of the earth/God....a subject discussed by human being males.

For the intention of science quotes were originally owned by male humans. And science knows that each individual who quotes knowledge or wisdom also demonstrates particular ownership to their thoughts as being especial as compared to anyone else. Yet the planet owned that story, not a human storyteller.

Each title description was an evaluated science description that owned TITLES of an answer that said ended with the WORD. So God was the word God and owned the word God. Christ owned the word Christ. And the Saviour owned the word Saviour.

Therefore as the Saviour gases are very cold and the UFO mass is also cold in spatial release, if you heat it up in Earth burning gases, and it gets sent back out, then it removes our Saviour. What ancient science realized in converting the stone mass. How we lose historically cold gas mass support.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

I don't intend to debate on this. What I state is my belief, and others are welcome to theirs, and I will defend their right to their beliefs.

In the OT, when Moses first encounters God, he is told that he can not look upon God and live. Later on, God allows Moses to see him and he comes out all bleached.

Yes, I know that in the NT Jesus says that "I and the Father are one", but I think that means, in context, that the Father and he agree. If Jesus were God, then no one could have looked at him, and people DID look at him, even after the resurrection.

I think that the "Jesus as God" idea came out of the folly of what became the early Catholic Church.

I'm not going to dig all the references out. We all claim to be out of diapers, so you can do it yourself.

One concept held by some Christians is that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. So one might look the human Jesus in the eyes without seeing the God Jesus within.

That one can be in the presence of something that kills and go unscathed is see in many examples. One such example is radioactive material inside a lead “pig”. One may pickup such a container or be in close proximity to it for extended periods of time with no adverse effects.

The interesting question I think is this: Why would God want to be a human? I wonder if perhaps such a state of existence would benefit us in some way.

 

[rational experiences]

One concept held by some Christians is that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. So one might look the human Jesus in the eyes without seeing the God Jesus within.

That one can be in the presence of something that kills and go unscathed is see in many examples. One such example is radioactive material inside a lead “pig”. One may pickup such a container or be in close proximity to it for extended periods of time with no adverse effects.

How can a human male in science not be the storyteller and theist for all scientific stories as a living storyteller?

So of course Jesus was a man, but was Jesus just his ability to consciously conclude what supported his existence living and what did not.

For I certainly know that when I hear a spiritual speaking voice, it is either an artificial evil spirit replicating communicator, or it is the first male human scientist machine theory encoded life attack caused by his own science self. As his life owned mass of living recorded memories by the billions.

Why artificial memory is speaking evilly, for a lot of his science themes as the theist involves unnatural radiation converted changes to a point of near total destruction of natural Earth mass. Which was not relative to his origin of theory in natural mass beginnings, before activated conversion.

Human science did after all only own self image reflection, yet the Sun mass sent in a lot of artificially dispersed unnatural communicators as well.

Reasoning...….did a male human invent the origin of the flooded Earth after the sun attacked it, converted it and bored holes and then removed and flat topped mountain peaks above that water line?

The answer is no.

Therefore what a first scientist as a theist stated for machine was never owned historically naturally. Why a portion of the Sun radiation attack has no scientific control.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

How can a human male in science not be the storyteller and theist for all scientific stories as a living storyteller?

So of course Jesus was a man, but was Jesus just his ability to consciously conclude what supported his existence living and what did not.

For I certainly know that when I hear a spiritual speaking voice, it is either an artificial evil spirit replicating communicator, or it is the first male human scientist machine theory encoded life attack caused by his own science self. As his life owned mass of living recorded memories by the billions.

Why artificial memory is speaking evilly, for a lot of his science themes as the theist involves unnatural radiation converted changes to a point of near total destruction of natural Earth mass. Which was not relative to his origin of theory in natural mass beginnings, before activated conversion.

Human science did after all only own self image reflection, yet the Sun mass sent in a lot of artificially dispersed unnatural communicators as well.

Reasoning...….did a male human invent the origin of the flooded Earth after the sun attacked it, converted it and bored holes and then removed and flat topped mountain peaks above that water line?

The answer is no.

Therefore what a first scientist as a theist stated for machine was never owned historically naturally. Why a portion of the Sun radiation attack has no scientific control.

Your thoughts are beyond my comprehension.

 

[rational experiences]

Your thoughts are beyond my comprehension.

Apply simple scientific observations.

If all humans stopped having sex.....life would age and we would all die.

No more humans living on Earth. A very simple scientific observation.

Bio life is relative to owning only about 100 years of self presence...another scientific observation.

Therefore your human intention in science to apply evaluation to states that existed in creation for a huge amount of referenced time as compared to self should about advise the human self that in relativity of scientific quotes, you seem to be wrong.

Consciousness was a relative human mind condition to bring the human self back to a balanced self ideal, that only in your self one body are you present.

Why meditation was practiced, as was prayer. To clear the mind of all self deceitful thoughts as contemplated in science, being in total opposition of self survival.

Hence science was stated to be the occult and also the ANTI status as compared to natural self existence.

Medical science can say, my scientific bio observations for human life are relevant to assist life in harm. Real observed truth.

However when any other scientist tries to take that medical information elsewhere, he is not telling any observable truth beyond natural self presence.

If you question science and its expressed variances, one form of science attacked life, so all other sciences were themed to own information detailed to protect life, by conditions of those observances. Which you seem to forget the reasoning of those scientific practices.

Jesus, all themes of are about a man/male, and are about life being sacrificed, which is human information and life being saved, which is human information.

And it is just scientific explanations as only stated by living humans in the presence of the living human.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Apply simple scientific observations.

If all humans stopped having sex.....life would age and we would all die.

No more humans living on Earth. A very simple scientific observation.

Bio life is relative to owning only about 100 years of self presence...another scientific observation.

Therefore your human intention in science to apply evaluation to states that existed in creation for a huge amount of referenced time as compared to self should about advise the human self that in relativity of scientific quotes, you seem to be wrong.

Consciousness was a relative human mind condition to bring the human self back to a balanced self ideal, that only in your self one body are you present.

Why meditation was practiced, as was prayer. To clear the mind of all self deceitful thoughts as contemplated in science, being in total opposition of self survival.

Hence science was stated to be the occult and also the ANTI status as compared to natural self existence.

Medical science can say, my scientific bio observations for human life are relevant to assist life in harm. Real observed truth.

However when any other scientist tries to take that medical information elsewhere, he is not telling any observable truth beyond natural self presence.

If you question science and its expressed variances, one form of science attacked life, so all other sciences were themed to own information detailed to protect life, by conditions of those observances. Which you seem to forget the reasoning of those scientific practices.

Jesus, all themes of are about a man/male, and are about life being sacrificed, which is human information and life being saved, which is human information.

And it is just scientific explanations as only stated by living humans in the presence of the living human.

Yeah, no. Still beyond my grasp. Perhaps you should simplify? State only one idea, pause and ask if I understand. If I do, then state the second. Rather than build the entire grand idea, lay one brick at a time?

 

[rational experiences]

Yeah, no. Still beyond my grasp. Perhaps you should simplify? State only one idea, pause and ask if I understand. If I do, then state the second. Rather than build the entire grand idea, lay one brick at a time?

Male humans the inventor of all science meanings and titles, just as humans are WRONG.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm near nearly smart enough to have written Acts 2:22, Rom 5:15, 1 Tim 2:5, and a few others that say without one ounce of ambiguity that Jesus was a man.

As far as Jesus being with sin, it is very true he did not ever sin, but he could have since he was tempted just like you or I. Do you feel it is impossible for you to sin whenever you are tempted? I don't think so, or your temptation would be nothing at all like his temptations. I might also remind you that God can not be tempted. I would also remind you that Jesus bore all or our sins, and therefore it is not true to say he was without sin. He bore those sins and suffered the consequences of them, i.e. death, because he loved us just that much.



All in all, I'd say it is much harder to maintain the position that Jesus is God than not. You have to explain how God knew things Jesus didn't know (Mark 13:32), how God had a God (John 20:17, Eph 1:17), how God could not do anything without God (John 5:30), how God died, how God was tempted (Jas 1:13), why God would have to confer judgment to Himself (John 5:22), how God could be like us (Heb 2:17), how God could be greater than God (John 14:28), and much more. A bunch more. I, on the other hand, can just read all of these scriptures and simply believe what they say. No need to twist simple words or concepts to conform with the man made doctrine hammered out at a council (Nicea) composed largely of Platonic loving so-called church fathers. They were quite enamored with Greek philosophy and Egyptian mysticism. That is a pure fact of church history that can not be denied. I have no use whatsoever for their doctrine. I like the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures.

My doctrine is not influenced by the doctrines of man. I'm happy to stick to the scriptures.

If your starting point is that Jesus is only a man, then problems arise with the scriptures. If you believe Jesus Christ [during his earthly ministry] was nothing but God, that is also a problem. The scriptures make clear, however, that Jesus was a man anointed with the 'fulness of the Godhead bodily'. This makes Jesus Christ the true mediator, because a mediator stands with a foot in both camps. Jesus Christ, whilst on earth, was BOTH fully man and fully God.

Galatians 3:20.'Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one'.

As I'm sure you're fully aware, Jesus passes through a number of phases in his life. Up until he was thirty he was not under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. He walked as a Jew under the law. During his ministry he was led by the faith of the Holy Spirit. He was tempted in all things as a man, but sinned not. Now, as you say, God cannot be tempted. Not that Satan cannot tempt, but that God cannot be tempted.

Jesus Christ, as a man, bore our sins on the cross. The point at which the sin was laid upon him was the point at which the Spirit of God left him [Psalm 22]. To carry the sins of others is not the same as committing sin.

Once Jesus Christ is resurrected, the flesh is dead. Mortality is replaced by immortality; corruption by incorruption.

It is in Jesus' resurrected state that Thomas says to Jesus Christ, 'My Lord and my God'. I do not believe this was a mistake, or an exclamation without meaning.

Then we have the Ascension, as seen by Daniel in his night visions.
Daniel 7:13,14. 'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed'.

Do you serve Jesus Christ, or do you serve another god?

Deuteronomy 6:13. 'Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name'.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Male humans the inventor of all science meanings and titles, just as humans are WRONG.

All humans are wrong, or only all male humans, or only some male humans?

 

[rrobs]

My doctrine is not influenced by the doctrines of man. I'm happy to stick to the scriptures.

If your starting point is that Jesus is only a man, then problems arise with the scriptures. If you believe Jesus Christ [during his earthly ministry] was nothing but God, that is also a problem. The scriptures make clear, however, that Jesus was a man anointed with the 'fulness of the Godhead bodily'. This makes Jesus Christ the true mediator, because a mediator stands with a foot in both camps. Jesus Christ, whilst on earth, was BOTH fully man and fully God.

Galatians 3:20.'Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one'.

As I'm sure you're fully aware, Jesus passes through a number of phases in his life. Up until he was thirty he was not under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. He walked as a Jew under the law. During his ministry he was led by the faith of the Holy Spirit. He was tempted in all things as a man, but sinned not. Now, as you say, God cannot be tempted. Not that Satan cannot tempt, but that God cannot be tempted.

Jesus Christ, as a man, bore our sins on the cross. The point at which the sin was laid upon him was the point at which the Spirit of God left him [Psalm 22]. To carry the sins of others is not the same as committing sin.

Once Jesus Christ is resurrected, the flesh is dead. Mortality is replaced by immortality; corruption by incorruption.

It is in Jesus' resurrected state that Thomas says to Jesus Christ, 'My Lord and my God'. I do not believe this was a mistake, or an exclamation without meaning.

Then we have the Ascension, as seen by Daniel in his night visions.
Daniel 7:13,14. 'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed'.

Do you serve Jesus Christ, or do you serve another god?

Deuteronomy 6:13. 'Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name'.

Psalms 22 says nothing about the spirit of God leaving Jesus. Do you really think God abandoned Jesus in his darkest hour? An earthly father wouldn't even abandon his son in similar circumstances. Read the whole Psalm and you'll see God did not abandon David or Jesus. David simply got discouraged until he thought things through at which point he realized God never left him. This whole "man part" and "God part" idea is a complete fabrication of those who formulated the trinity doctrine, the ones who loved Plato. Plato loved the Pagan concept of god-men, but such an abomination was most repugnant to the Jews.

Thomas called Jesus god. His idea of a god was not the same as most Christians. Christians tend to think that the word "god" is reserved for the Father of Jesus Christ, Yahweh. That is not true for the ancient Eastern man. If you look at a concordance you can see that a god is anyone with power and authority. Caesar was called a God. Jesus called the Jews gods (John 10:34). Moses was called a god (Ex 7:1). However there is only one Yahweh, God almighty, the Father of Jesus.

1Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

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.​

Looks like only the Father is God, so even if there was a God the Son, he would not be God. How can you squeeze verse 6 into saying Jesus was God?

According to the scriptures, it is impossible to be both God and man. Such a grotesque creation did exist in all Pagan religions, but the Jews knew better.

There is nothing in Daniel that indicates Jesus is God. He is called the son of man, not God. As such it is easy to understand that he was given the power and authority as verse 14 says. If he were God, I'd be curious as to who you think gave God power and authority. Who gave God a kingdom? Some bigger God?

The resurrected Jesus' flesh is dead? That's not what Luke says:

Luke 24:39,

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.​

Looks like his flesh and bones were alive here.

Gal 3:20,

Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
​

I see nothing there that would indicate Jesus is God. Honestly, this is a verse that I'm not sure of, but I know it has nothing to do with saying Jesus is God. If anything it reaffirms the truth that God is one. The Pagans had many gods, many of whom were trinities, but the Jews knew of no such thing. There God was one. Not three or three in one, just one. We all know what "one" means, and it is not the same as "three."

Hebrews does not just say the devil tempted Jesus even though Jesus could not be tempted. It says in plain language that Jesus was tempted just like you are tempted. I'll ask you again, do you feel like you are part or all God when tempted? Either Hebrews is wrong, and Jesus was not really tempted like you are tempted, or Hebrews is right in saying Jesus was tempted like you are tempted, which would preclude him from being God.

OK. I've answered most, if not all, of your assertions. I've yet to hear anything from you on:

1. How God knew things Jesus didn't know (Mark 13:32)
2. How God had a God (John 20:17, Eph 1:17)
3. Who is God's father (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 2 Cor 1:3)
   
4. Why God could not do anything without God (John 5:30)
5. How God was tempted (Jas 1:13)
6. Why God would have to confer judgment to Himself (John 5:22)
7. How God could be like us (Heb 2:17)
8. How God could be greater than God (John 14:28)

 

[rrobs]

Your thoughts are beyond my comprehension.

God couldn't even comprehend what rational experience says.

One time I wrote an equally incomprehensible response to him. Utter nonsense. Never heard back from him. Probably a fine individual who just likes having a good time. It's OK, but as far as I can tell, there is no point in engaging with him.

Take care.

 

[rational experiences]

All humans are wrong, or only all male humans, or only some male humans?

Science is wrong.

Science all names, meanings and titles are wrong...done by male humans on behalf of and because of male humans.

And of course all humans can be wrong, wrong in the status of not allowing humans to live in moral spirituality of naturally owned human equality.

For example, a male says my pattern for science remains the same.

Okay brother, what was your pattern for science. ^ a mountain peak. The numbers he says and pattern always remain the same....as the science formula was for one condition only.

However mountains were diverse in height. Hence some mountains might be struck at number such and such, and collapse most of its peak....why mountains were attacked in variations of its body presence...by the Numbers.

Law of the mountain.

So science, learnt. What learning is. You learn that you are wrong, for we were never right. Why the teaching always said, that no man is God and to have believed it real was your own destruction.

Yet still to this day you have to argue about it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God couldn't even comprehend what rational experience says.

One time I wrote an equally incomprehensible response to him. Utter nonsense. Never heard back from him. Probably a fine individual who just likes having a good time. It's OK, but as far as I can tell, there is no point in engaging with him.

Take care.

I totally agree, except that they're a woman according to their profile. Lol.

 

[rational experiences]

Psalms 22 says nothing about the spirit of God leaving Jesus. Do you really think God abandoned Jesus in his darkest hour? An earthly father wouldn't even abandon his son in similar circumstances. Read the whole Psalm and you'll see God did not abandon David or Jesus. David simply got discouraged until he thought things through at which point he realized God never left him. This whole "man part" and "God part" idea is a complete fabrication of those who formulated the trinity doctrine, the ones who loved Plato. Plato loved the Pagan concept of god-men, but such an abomination was most repugnant to the Jews.

Thomas called Jesus god. His idea of a god was not the same as most Christians. Christians tend to think that the word "god" is reserved for the Father of Jesus Christ, Yahweh. That is not true for the ancient Eastern man. If you look at a concordance you can see that a god is anyone with power and authority. Caesar was called a God. Jesus called the Jews gods (John 10:34). Moses was called a god (Ex 7:1). However there is only one Yahweh, God almighty, the Father of Jesus.

1Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

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.​

Looks like only the Father is God, so even if there was a God the Son, he would not be God. How can you squeeze verse 6 into saying Jesus was God?

According to the scriptures, it is impossible to be both God and man. Such a grotesque creation did exist in all Pagan religions, but the Jews knew better.

There is nothing in Daniel that indicates Jesus is God. He is called the son of man, not God. As such it is easy to understand that he was given the power and authority as verse 14 says. If he were God, I'd be curious as to who you think gave God power and authority. Who gave God a kingdom? Some bigger God?

The resurrected Jesus' flesh is dead? That's not what Luke says:

Luke 24:39,

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.​

Looks like his flesh and bones were alive here.

Gal 3:20,

Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
​

I see nothing there that would indicate Jesus is God. Honestly, this is a verse that I'm not sure of, but I know it has nothing to do with saying Jesus is God. If anything it reaffirms the truth that God is one. The Pagans had many gods, many of whom were trinities, but the Jews knew of no such thing. There God was one. Not three or three in one, just one. We all know what "one" means, and it is not the same as "three."

Hebrews does not just say the devil tempted Jesus even though Jesus could not be tempted. It says in plain language that Jesus was tempted just like you are tempted. I'll ask you again, do you feel like you are part or all God when tempted? Either Hebrews is wrong, and Jesus was not really tempted like you are tempted, or Hebrews is right in saying Jesus was tempted like you are tempted, which would preclude him from being God.

OK. I've answered most, if not all, of your assertions. I've yet to hear anything from you on:

1. How God knew things Jesus didn't know (Mark 13:32)
2. How God had a God (John 20:17, Eph 1:17)
3. Who is God's father (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 2 Cor 1:3)
   
4. Why God could not do anything without God (John 5:30)
5. How God was tempted (Jas 1:13)
6. Why God would have to confer judgment to Himself (John 5:22)
7. How God could be like us (Heb 2:17)
8. How God could be greater than God (John 14:28)

If you believe in God, which in science is the planet then you believe in the planet and presence of stone.

As simple as it is....God is Holy by definition, without our planet existing we will all be destroyed....simple common sense.

If a human says you cannot understand God the Father, then no, of course you cannot understand a stated history which none of us, babies ever existed as, nor endured the reason for made in the Image of God....lived through a ground fission.

And then claim self innocent for not knowing. One of the failures in human male sciences. Claiming self is still innocent yet doing huge atrocities to our Nature.

So I learnt "Father of God" is real....for he did it to his self.

And his original spiritual human male form, real and true, the saving of his own self, as brother to brother true....why males between Father and son and brother and brother own status to accept ONE true head/mind and behaviour about the one self in order of brothers.

Because it is factually and proven consciously in hierarchical copying.

Because our life mind and body were encoded to own that historical event.

Now if you say to a human, how do you know that Father of God is real?

Because I do....he saved me by conditions of realizing that I was physically and consciously being left behind in my humanity.

Reasoning for the condition, AI computer science and satellite studies of life and conditions does not and never did it own his spiritual presence, nor was it ever interacting with him.

So he lost a lot of my brothers and sisters due to AI computer and satellite harp pulsed studies...thanks loving kind and never caring science brothers.

 

[rational experiences]

I totally agree, except that they're a woman according to their profile. Lol.

That is right I am a female, lucky to still be alive after surviving irradiation and my concepts changed...and so I am not enabled to use computers to the higher extent of what I once was capable of...so I use my husbands instead. As my mind cannot grasp technicalities...if you owned some personal spiritual compassion.

Which seemingly many do not yet profess that they are religiously spiritual to choose to be on this forum.

And when an Atheist then claims, oh we have rights too.....then take a look at why spiritual humans have no belief in you either.