Jesus says, I Am He

[rational experiences]

Beginning. Science.

Human alive thinking. In water oxygenated heavens baptized in life holy.

Healthy whole present body human.

Says sciences beginnings first before he says I claim.i know it all.

Says O pi and a number.
Says O Phi and a number.

Whole healthy human being spiritually intelligent first origins self.

Origin creation existed in all present separate highest forms. Natural.

Not an argument. You can't argue truth as reality existed first.

Belief leading to self possession a man men human lying status.

Who when we look at their human memories and behaviours we say what evil choices. Mean what we say about past human behaviour based on self today being better.

Yet how much behaviour wrong still expressed with humans lying?

The destroyer mentality. I am right as I can murder as a threat to do or gain whatever I want. Says it to a human as a human

Not as God.
Not as a machine.

Just a human.

In the beginning science says thinking did not exist.

So nor did O pi or O Phi.

A God did not exist.
A human did not exist.
A machine did not exist.

Basic real intelligence.

Fission he says his to unseal God mass products. Alchemy he says.

Fusion exists.

Sion his thesis to think.

Sion fusion does not think it is owned mass products.

Fission does not think.

Sion is not consciousness

Basic intelligence.

Self possess Sion. I wanted its powers.

To possess is not never was being those bodies.

Self human thinker self possesed about his thoughts about Sion.

The teaching

To possess.

I possess my own human life.

I never possessed bodies products God.

Irradiated by origin design to encode was encoded by machine. By machine history I became self possessed by thoughts science.

Science became a human self possession of irrational thinking.

 

[blü 2]

Not really, IMV. You are speaking of the manifested Word who became man.

Only in John. That's not the case in the synoptics, and I don't recall Paul identifying Jesus with the logos at any point, though Paul is John's fellow-gnostic.

As man, God has assumed not only the God of Heaven as the Father, but also exercising the legal authority as Man fulfilling Gen 1:26.

I say again, ALL versions of Jesus ─ Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's, Luke's and John's ─ say out loud and proud that they are NOT God, and none of them ever once says that he is. (I'm happy to set out the quotes again if you wish.)

So, if you were to take the statement of Philippians 2:11 and find it origin you find in at Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

But that's the God of Jesus speaking, not Jesus.

the very statement of Isaiah is speaking of God Himself. It is fulfilled in that Jesus is both Man and God.

I respect your right to believe as seems best to you, but it seems to be simply the case that the NT offers you no support.

But getting back to the principal theme of this thread, what's your take on Eve's eating the fruit in the Garden story? Was it a Good Thing or a Bad Thing in your opinion?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As far as "I shall be"... I don't find that interpretation/
As far as capital I AM - there were no capital letters in the original documents - so any application is man adjusting to try to make it more understandable. None the less, it is still God.
Yes on God an Pharaoh!! Well said!! YHWH judged every God that Pharaoh esteemed.

Thank you for your reply. Yes God (YHWH) adversely judged every 'god ' (the false gods) that Pharaoh esteemed.
( side note: seems as if Man's 'gods' of business and industry today are being humiliated by the Covid spread )
Yes, the use of capital letters can help make things more understandable. See Psalms 110 for example:
KJV, the LORD in all Upper-Case letters stands for LORD God ( Tetragrammaton )
The other, Psalm 110 'Lord' in some lower-case letters stands for: Lord Jesus ( No Tetragrammaton there )

 

[Kenny]

Only in John. That's not the case in the synoptics, and I don't recall Paul identifying Jesus with the logos at any point, though Paul is John's fellow-gnostic.

I disagree.

Even Bart Ehrman disagrees:

"April 13, 2014

This, I believe, will be my final post on an issue that changed my mind about while doing the research for How Jesus Became God. This last one is a big one – for me, at least. And it’s not one that I develop at length in the book in any one place, since it covers a span of material. Here’s the deal:

Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke."

Ehrman then concedes:

These Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggests that even for these Gospels Jesus was a divine being, not merely a human."

i think what you are looking for is for the other synoptics to say "exactly" what John said but then John would be accused of plagiarism.

And Paul:
TITUS 2:11 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Very clear - God our Savior appeared... how? Jesus Christ.

John and Paul were not gnostics but actually wrote against it.
What the Bible says about Gnosticism

I say again, ALL versions of Jesus ─ Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's, Luke's and John's ─ say out loud and proud that they are NOT God, and none of them ever once says that he is. (I'm happy to set out the quotes again if you wish.)

I don't understand: "say out loud and proud that they are NOT God," - of course they are not God.

So, if you were to take the statement of Philippians 2:11 and find it origin you find in at Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.


But that's the God of Jesus speaking, not Jesus.

No... verse 21
have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

It is God speaking - and He just said that "unto me" - and yet it is also "unto Jesus" - making them one.

I respect your right to believe as seems best to you, but it seems to be simply the case that the NT offers you no support.

But getting back to the principal theme of this thread, what's your take on Eve's eating the fruit in the Garden story? Was it a Good Thing or a Bad Thing in your opinion?

The reason what it is a hot topic is because there IS evidence in the NT supported by the old.

As for as eating the fruit... it wasn't the way and the truth therefore there was no life it it, only death. Not a good thing.

 

[blü 2]

I disagree.

Even Bart Ehrman disagrees:

"April 13, 2014

This, I believe, will be my final post on an issue that changed my mind about while doing the research for How Jesus Became God. This last one is a big one – for me, at least. And it’s not one that I develop at length in the book in any one place, since it covers a span of material. Here’s the deal:

Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke."

Yes, Jesus is not portrayed in John as though he were God ─ it's nice that I was ahead of Bart at least on one occasion.

Ehrman then concedes:

These Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggests that even for these Gospels Jesus was a divine being, not merely a human."

Being 'divine' can but doesn't usually mean being God (even though etymologically the word is ultimately derived from Latin deus). As my Shorter Oxford says. 'divine' means

1. Of or pertaining to God or a god.
2. Given or proceeding from God.
3. Addressed or devoted to God' religious; sacred.
4. Partaking of the nature of God; godlike; celestial.

I think what you are looking for is for the other synoptics to say "exactly" what John said but then John would be accused of plagiarism.

My interest is in what each gospel, and Paul, actually says. It's neither here nor there for me whether they agree or not. When I see they do, I note it; and when I see they don't, I note it. I have no agenda that requires them to do either.

And Paul:
TITUS 2:11 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Titus isn't by Paul, for a start. It's a later pseudepigraph. And the text, according to my New Oxford Annotated Bible, has a variant, "of the great God and our Savior" (though I imply that's found in later rather than earliest texts).

John and Paul were not gnostics but actually wrote against it.
What the Bible says about Gnosticism

Both Paul and the author of John have Jesus pre-existing in heaven with God and making the material universe. I would have thought it was uncontroversial that these were elements of gnosticism, regardless of what other elements of Paul or John are not.

No... verse 21

have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.[/quote] Isaiah 45:21, in effect echoing Exodus 4:11. But none of that has anything to do with Jesus ─ that's the definitely-not-Triune God of Israel speaking.

As for as eating the fruit... it wasn't the way and the truth therefore there was no life it it, only death. Not a good thing.

Really? You wish (even if it's only in legend) that humans couldn't tell right from wrong?

I mean, really?

 

[rational experiences]

Human memory heavenly lived life recorded. Is left in the body mass of heavens with sciences human designer scientist father. An image. Voice recordings. Stories.

A human teaching.

Known spirit condition in the gases. Humans not living in gases. We live in water holy ox generation oxygen.

Cloud water owns burnt carbonized bio microbes that we use for body food. Taken from ground state. Image formed by human designer a cause.

Energy. Bio food. In water.

Our food lost in evaporation radiation returned from unholy womb UFO effect. Upper increased gas burning removed life existence.

A science known human teaching.

The scientific holy brother group agreement. Multi cultural.

Said one O God stone science is products. For human chosen sciences.

Said stone O God sealed. Keeping life safe.

Said one God O stone is virtually the only discussion. O a planet. No thesis acceptable.

Volcano explosive release to gain heavens a created O God planet evil act. Gods evil. To have sex with space womb. The actual teaching.

The science agreement.

God O earth stone O mass complete whole holy. Completed. Finished ended sealed highest God form.

Nothing else to discuss beyond one O God accept acceptance. O the planet only.

Science human choice was a proven liar.

What O one as God earth planet realisation science as a held teaching agreement. No status for science nothing beyond O completeness. Planet body.

Why you cannot argue about what had already been agreed by the holy men scientist evaluation of why life human was attacked and sacrificed.

As space sex God and womb was quantified evil. It had broken highest seal. God and stone O.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, Jesus is not portrayed in John as though he were God ─ it's nice that I was ahead of Bart at least on one occasion. Being 'divine' can but doesn't usually mean being God (even though etymologically the word is ultimately derived from Latin deus). As my Shorter Oxford says. 'divine' means

1. Of or pertaining to God or a god.
2. Given or proceeding from God.
3. Addressed or devoted to God' religious; sacred.
4. Partaking of the nature of God; godlike; celestial.

Merriam Webster also adds:
a. or a god
b.being a deity -the divine Savior

The fact that an atheist would come to that conclusion (as in your selected definition) gives support that my viewpoint has validity (though interpretations ma vary)

My interest is in what each gospel, and Paul, actually says. It's neither here nor there for me whether they agree or not. When I see they do, I note it; and when I see they don't, I note it. I have no agenda that requires them to do either.

OK... but I have listed so many.

Titus isn't by Paul, for a start. It's a later pseudepigraph. And the text, according to my New Oxford Annotated Bible, has a variant, "of the great God and our Savior" (though I imply that's found in later rather than earliest texts).

I think we are just looking through the lenses of our beliefs. Most of the earliest believers trusted that Titus was written by Paul

Both Paul and the author of John have Jesus pre-existing in heaven with God and making the material universe. I would have thought it was uncontroversial that these were elements of gnosticism, regardless of what other elements of Paul or John are not.

Again.... that is your viewpoint, of which you are free to believe, but John makes it very explicit... "And the Word was God"... and one cannot dance around that very poignant statement.

have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 45:21, in effect echoing Exodus 4:11. But none of that has anything to do with Jesus ─ that's the definitely-not-Triune God of Israel speaking.[/QUOTE]
As I noted, I don't view it the way. Every knee bows down to God and Philippians explicitly say that is Jesus.

Really? You wish (even if it's only in legend) that humans couldn't tell right from wrong?

I mean, really?

Eve - Wrong information, wrong decisions. I thought fetuses were expendable at will, now I know that sacrificing babies on the altar of conveniences is wrong.

Adam - I knew some things were wrong and did it anyways. Am I an anomaly? or have have done it too.

 

[metis]

Even Bart Ehrman disagrees:

"April 13, 2014

This, I believe, will be my final post on an issue that changed my mind about while doing the research for How Jesus Became God.

Great book!

 

[blü 2]

Eve - Wrong information, wrong decisions. I thought fetuses were expendable at will, now I know that sacrificing babies on the altar of conveniences is wrong.

Adam - I knew some things were wrong and did it anyways. Am I an anomaly? or have have done it too.

Whenever you decide something's right or something's wrong, thank Eve, even if only in legend ─ God was intent on keeping you ignorant.

 

[Kenny]

Whenever you decide something's right or something's wrong, thank Eve, even if only in legend ─ God was intent on keeping you ignorant.

I really don't see that.

I don't see it that way but that is OK. It isn't a fellowship breaker.

As you intimated, I believe the problem is found in mankind that seems to "decide something is right or something is wrong"... maybe we should be asking God?

Even in violation of science, "I have decided I am of no gender and am an eskimo -- because I see myself as such".

 

[blü 2]

I really don't see that.

I don't see it that way but that is OK. It isn't a fellowship breaker.

As you intimated, I believe the problem is found in mankind that seems to "decide something is right or something is wrong"... maybe we should be asking God?

Even in violation of science, "I have decided I am of no gender and am an eskimo -- because I see myself as such".

Were I in that position ─ I'm not ─ then I might make a statement such as:

While the evolved human brain links sex and gender as a normal process in development for most people, there are exceptions; and I find myself, through my own sense of gender, distressed at my sex. Not simply for my own peace of mind but out of an inner conviction which for me amounts to certainty, I will investigate and if possible undertake gender reassignment surgery.
​

I have a friend and former occasional colleague, a generation or so younger than I am, who was Mz and is now Mr. Still a very clever and delightful human, though our contact has been limited largely to Christmas greetings for the last five or so years. I dare say such a step comes with its own considerable problems, and possibly painful and wounding psychological adjustments with family, friends, and acquaintances ─ but at no point can I see any wrongdoing, anything that might look like a "sin".

​

 

[rational experiences]

Human sciences a choice.

Awareness natural innate no need to talk proven. Holy brothers lived separated. Tended food garden did not speak. Communed spiritualy.

What was realised as holy ownership.

A balanced life.

Our baby to adult father human never the original father human who came directly from spirit. Manifested human form from his pre owned eternal form.

Once.

The same as our mother.

Once.

Science today says I will know everything.

Claim I know is not I will learn. Ego straight away says I know everything.

Learning in science to take apart. Destroyer mentality.

His word usage the liar. As a human fact he named all natural states a worded name.

Still does today. Names states even not on earth.

So his family said as a question who said you were God?

His answer I own everything and anything I want whenever I want. I will do by cult choice anything. I say what I want and you can't stop my behaviour.

His family said science by holy One origin father the only once and one true father unlike our brother who cares less for babies or brothers sisters. Proven by his ownership self imposed positions in life.

Father the real father said O science is right as God O mass O earth body. O science is O God mass just the completed planet sealed.

Why it was taught. Forced taught. Knowing our brothers evil behaviours. The exact reason why.

Complete. Natural. Owned by its God mother space. O earth mass entity God

Said o pi and O Phi a liar and not God.

Basic simple correct science advice no argument.

Yet he argues by ownership cult greed.

Which won't save him for being wrong.

Basic human advice to ignorance and arrogance. Human expressed status.

Words answered his machine want of Phi jesus a worded description as the answer. Life was sacrificed by claim I own by I named by my human words.

O God mass changes by ownership all gases told him the advice. As he tried forcibly to change mass earth in holy mother womb space. Space owned gases.

So he forced evolution in space itself to be destroyed. By claim past state that did not even exist. Big bang blasting.

Reality. The gift. Presence. Present.

Stating evil history had pre sent itself but no longer owned any claim present.

Basic advice for liars.

 

[Kenny]

Were I in that position ─ I'm not ─ then I might make a statement such as:

While the evolved human brain links sex and gender as a normal process in development for most people, there are exceptions; and I find myself, through my own sense of gender, distressed at my sex. Not simply for my own peace of mind but out of an inner conviction which for me amounts to certainty, I will investigate and if possible undertake gender reassignment surgery.
​

I have a friend and former occasional colleague, a generation or so younger than I am, who was Mz and is now Mr. Still a very clever and delightful human, though our contact has been limited largely to Christmas greetings for the last five or so years. I dare say such a step comes with its own considerable problems, and possibly painful and wounding psychological adjustments with family, friends, and acquaintances ─ but at no point can I see any wrongdoing, anything that might look like a "sin".

​

Isn't this a great example of what "man decides"? So who decides? I thought science was what we were suppose to rely on, so is biological science no longer needed?

I don't see it as a matter if a person is delightful or not since you can be delightful and yet have psychological problems. It doesn't qualify as right or wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Isn't this a great example of what "man decides"? So who decides? I thought science was what we were suppose to rely on, so is biological science no longer needed?

Yes, of course man decides. The only words God has are those spoken for [him] by humans, no matter which God that is.

I don't see it as a matter if a person is delightful or not since you can be delightful and yet have psychological problems. It doesn't qualify as right or wrong.

I was simply describing to you the only case in my personal experience, a fellow human who was suffering and if still suffering, is not suffering for the same reasons.

How would you have counseled her when she was a she? You're disgusting, madam, shut up and suck it up! (?) I don't read you like that.

 

[rational experiences]

Father told you brothers scientists by his heavenly man spiritual human memories. After ice age. Don't do science.

As his brothers in Atlantis old and origins science had destroyed all life on earth.

Evidence inside earths fused mass. Instant burn melt carbon instant snap cooled frozen. Machine parts. Human artefacts.

The human memories of science as you died. A fact.

Father's human heavens memories natural. Just human his speaking recorded voice.

Sacrificed brothers image memories science caused. Jesus statement.

So the AI effect by machine conditions human designer caused it. Voiced recordings. In large volume loud voices.

Father said common sense. The eternal was never stone as god. Not energy and not mass not gases. All evolved bodies from change.

You don't own any eternal in a scientific thesis. The original lie discussing a topic yet not owning what you discuss.

Which goes to every single object you ever destroyed discussing it as if you had ownership.

You are just an equal human who lied.

The lie science is the destroyer you learnt from destruction not creation.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, of course man decides. The only words God has are those spoken for [him] by humans, no matter which God that is.

Which is your world view.

That, of course, brings the problem where you have differing "right and wrong" as "man" decides. For some, murder may be wrong. For a tribe of cannibals, we are just animals and it is ok if we eat you during communal supper for survival as long as you are not from our tribe. (Brought to the nth degree for understanding). We would say they are wrong... but only based on "our decision".

I was simply describing to you the only case in my personal experience, a fellow human who was suffering and if still suffering, is not suffering for the same reasons.

How would you have counseled her when she was a she? You're disgusting, madam, shut up and suck it up! (?) I don't read you like that.

Of course I wouldn't--life is fragile, we handle it with love. Lives are important and we believe that God makes beautiful things out of broken lives. I was broken but now I am whole. I had a mindset that was destroying lives according to what I was taught

We always start with love and build up a God mindset. I now have what I would call a God mindset that is producing life.

 

[blü 2]

Which is your world view.

That, of course, brings the problem where you have differing "right and wrong" as "man" decides. For some, murder may be wrong. For a tribe of cannibals, we are just animals and it is ok if we eat you during communal supper for survival as long as you are not from our tribe. (Brought to the nth degree for understanding). We would say they are wrong... but only based on "our decision".

As I think I've mentioned before, humans are born with evolved moral tendencies ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial; and evolution has also provided a conscience and a capacity for empathy.

The rest of human morality is learnt from one's upbringing, culture, education and experience, and covers matters like how to behave towards older and younger, higher or lower authority, male or female, and how to socially acknowledge eg birth, coming of age, marriage and death.

We indeed find slavery, women as property, religious intolerance everywhere ─ not least in the bible. (It annoys Christians, as I know from experience, to point out that the Eucharist is symbolic cannibalism, but it's exactly that.)

But always and everywhere, man decides, man devises gods or supernatural beings, man seeks to control luck, fertility, the fortunes of hunting and of war, to understand human bonding, and death and so on.

None of the religions of the world has a real god, a god with objective existence and qualities appropriate to a god, like the power to grant wishes ─ nothing that can be shown to anyone. So (as I've mentioned before) I think religion is the result of some other evolved tendency, perhaps human curiosity which can't rest without answers to luck and death and weather and so on, and perhaps human identity, belonging to a tribe and sharing its language, customs, stories, heroes and beliefs, all of which aid human cooperation, the thing humans achieve with.

We always start with love and build up a God mindset. I now have what I would call a God mindset that is producing life.

Outside the debating ring, I have no argument with people who act with decency, respect and inclusion towards others. They're welcome to their beliefs if that's the result.

 

[YoursTrue]

What you are actually saying is that whoever who wrote this Gospel of John, this person who never met Jesus, and is not considered a synoptic gospel writer, someone who wrote this probably in the 2nd century, told you that Jesus said "I am he".

The other problem is that even a man who was speaking Eli in 1 Samuel also said "I am he". Is he also God?

Not all scholars agree that Jesus actually said he was YHWH. He did say, however, that he was alive

This isn't the trial where they were trying to suggest that he committed blasphemy, they wanted to stone him and/or push him over the cliff because the understood exactly what he was saying. It is in black and white or red when Jesus spoke.



That is an interpretation issue. The Creation of God can be The Church and, as the firstborn from the dead is the first of God's Creation - the Church

The reason that Jesus had to be God is because it was God first in authority, then man and then the angels. An angel could not take on the sin of mankind and remain solvent. Only God can do that.

One angel sinned once and the angel could not redeem even himself let alone the sins of the world

Please remember there are actually three stages for Jesus:

1) The Word (eternal)
2) Jesus - the man
3) Jesus the resurrected Lord and Savior. (God titles)

So you can't compare Jesus as the man and make him equal to The Word or the Lord and Savior.

Also Rev. 1: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

All are God names and titles




7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

He is also the Almighty



Again... you can't mix pre, present and post and think that any one of those are the same - though the same person.

Even Thomas understood! John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.





I have stated multiple places that it is said and declared. It is also in the TaNaKh. It isn't another God... it is just one God.

The Godhead, or Trinity - A Study in the Scriptures by Diane Dew



No... Hebrews specifically says it was not an angel



Great scholars believe it does.



???? Maybe this one will suit your better

Psalm 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

God is the rock of our salvation. Jesus is the rock of our salvation.

Jesus cried out to his heavenly Father. Furthermore, whoever Jesus saves from the population prior to his resurrection is in his hands. Remember, Jesus said all authority has been given to him. (Matthew 28)
"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

 

[rational experiences]

Science possesses the scientist.

The teaching.

You were not God from the eternal as mass of power.

Your psyche quotes as the theist what O know as the I self makes me powerful. Space and holes to react theory.

God O body never owned any space. You gave it to God body space holes.

And you lied.

Science destroyed you as God is not science. Theories zero space and holes.

Basic advice for human liars.

When conversion change is theoried and then included in the theory but I won't change anything means the thinker knows self not changed in natural. Conscious advice first just for self and not God as science.

Theist thinks about natural first.

Sacrifice of life is not natural first.

Origin of life complete presence is natural first. Which you totally ignored.

Removal is part of existence as a law. Natural causes removal itself. We die. Another coerced lie claiming bio form cannot be destroyed. Conscious bio form does get destroyed.

Why lying in power seeking thoughts gets you destroyed. The reason to argue my bio form goes back to origin first bio forms bacterias. As a thinker.

Yet humans did not begin as a bacterial. How science introducing it's invention destroys life.

What you also ignore.

Why science is the destroyer and liar.

God straight from eternal O held in eternal before it's sung holding O was once a spirit being as language of spirit.

O holding thinned mass around it in eternal was how God was originally separated. From eternal. How a psyche explains origin reasoning.

No different from a thesis creation where mass burnt in a big bang blast with science not claiming where origin fom came from.

Fell into change burst and burnt. O God history told as conscious awareness.

Removal destruction the law.

Holding is natural.

Theism science is removal. Talking law for science. Not holding of form.

Your title human destroyer.

Control of a machine that you built manifested in your sight. You stand before it's creation. You control what changes you want to achieve. By machine.

Why your title is destroyer.

The Jesus theme a whole book owns a summation that includes the destroyer.

Which you all ignore as being relative to the self sacrifice. Human.

Science said by law never quantify a human as a spirit of God. In God science a spirit is. Gas. The only reason why non spiritual science thinkers today know that their science advice is correct. Yet science was always wrong.

Which then allows the spirit believers to claim righteous information. As they say science lied whilst they also theory science.

Hence the Bible placated a human destroyer so your mentality could not claim self righteous.

A non scientist non theist natural life thinker correct. To say human is our origin not a spirit we are human.

And the other thinkers theorising are wrong. For you apply a possessed science mentality.

Saying from eternal is not a theory it was advice.

Saying conversion never took the human into the eternal that advice. You cannot convert into a higher state

Coercion the first theist. I will time shift life and take you all back into just spirit.

Spirit is a gas. In human science thinking.

Gas burning constant is holding of our life support.

To take you into humans spirit highest support in life holding is a burning gas.

Why science said as science do not believe your brother scientist. He destroyed your life in a worded con.

I saw the con in a pyramid vision. Taking life back into spirit by human science thesis self combustion sacrifice.

Jesus event a reminder that theists are liars.

Vision the first human science theory was never Ai feedback which included voiced recordings. Machine proven owned controlled recorded and transmitted by human control.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really, IMV. You are speaking of the manifested Word who became man. As man, God has assumed not only the God of Heaven as the Father, but also exercising the legal authority as Man fulfilling Gen 1:26.

So, if you were to take the statement of Philippians 2:11 and find it origin you find in at Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

the very statement of Isaiah is speaking of God Himself. It is fulfilled in that Jesus is both Man and God.

"This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me." John 18:9