Don't forget how many 'divorces' there are these days
- many people switching their loyalties or interests, or leaving religion behind altogether, and its associated 'gods'.
Indeed! Fortunately in some cases, unfortunately in others...
Also, calling something a 'slogan' doesn't necessarily demean or devalue what is being represented, but you're free to elevate it to a 'testimony' if that better accomodates you
I do appreciate your perspective, Freelight. How about the slogan, “New York Yankees suck!” That’s a little incendiary, don’t you think? That “something” is my testimony, indeed. Calling “something” a “slogan” suggests a groom tells his bride “I do”, agreeing to his vows at the marital alter. And, the bride responds, “I bet you said that to all the women you’ve known” ROFLOL! Do you happen to have an explicit, distinct, and resolute testimony? Perhaps you’ll eventually transcend to such, a good thing! But, elevating a slogan like “Heavenly Father” to the status of a testimony just doesn’t impute the same level of distinction, commitment and resolve. In fact, some slogans impugn one’s resolve.
KAY: I sincerely regret that you've become jaded with the notion due to the centuries old dispute, if that is in fact your only reason.
FREELIGHT: I think 'jaded' might be a bit too extravagant a term, could be a minor backfire of Christological burnout
I’m also familiar with the burnout, from my perspective, you speak of, Freelight. “Jaded” might be a better expression then identifying those who’ve “…left their religions behind altogether, and it’s associated ‘gods’” as you mentioned above. Thanks for being more clear referring to a “minor backfire”.
KAY: However, I admire the notion you left the door somewhat cracked open that revelation is ever progressive... indeed!
FREELIGHT: Always,…as I'm ever open to 'progressive revelation',...its kind of one of those universal principles ya know. I see life as 'creation', ever unfolding, ever evolving, as long as there is relativity or movement of any kind. Space, time, energy, movement, form, consciousness....relating. Such is life in motion.
I do indeed appreciate ‘progressive revelation’ being a ‘universal principle’, Freelight. Perhaps you’ll be exposed to a little ‘progressive revelation’ in this post; but, that’s a matter for John 14:26 KJV. Many think all is known that could be known regarding the Bible. I personally think I’ve only scratched the surface with rather thought provoking questions that’ve not been answered in mainstream Christianity. The notion Jesus’ specific healing miracles were genetic is scantly, but sufficiently documented with Scriptural circumstantial diagnostic evidence. Consider the
man with the withered
right arm exquisitely illustrated in Luke 6:6 KJV… that was a real tough one exhausting the medical literature. That fellow suffered from Poland syndrome quoting Wikipedia to cut to the chase:
According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, Poland syndrome affects males three times as often as females and affects the right side of the body twice as often as the left.[7] The incidence is estimated to range from one in 7,000 to one in 100,000 live births.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_syndrome#cite_note-7
Well, that’s my personal observation.
KAY: The bottom line here is either we believe Jesus' divinity, we utterly know Jesus' divine origin, we consider Jesus might be of divine origin, or we sorta doubt it, have no interest, and there are those who mock the notion as those non-Israelites who instigated His crucifixion. You've provided no Scriptural rebuttal to the notion of Jesus' divine origin, so that seems to me like one of those situations probably better left on the table.
FREELIGHT: I’ve offered sundry proofs, resources, videos before supporting a 'Unitarian' perspective, and don't forget...there's just as many Unitarian proof-texts as there are Trinitarian,...yet the latter have more 'interpolations' created for their cause than the latter.
With sincere respect Freelight, neither Unitarians, nor Trinitarians have explicitly and succinctly unveiled the ‘truth- text’ testimonies of John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV being THE two divine testimonies (John 8:17, 18) corroborating Jesus’ divine origin (John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV). In John 8:38, Jesus was “with (his) father”. And, in John 8:40 KJV Jesus “heard from God”. Jesus’ words warrant He was not God; that’s my Utilitarian perspective. But, I’m not hearing any renowned theologians from either camp who can explicitly unveil these two testimonies corroborating the distinction that Jesus was not God. These two testimonies compromised “the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32 KJV). One benefit of said “truth” includes utter resolve to Jesus’ origin. Consequently, said explicit and succinct “truth” “converted” (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus’ ‘believers’ (NOT non-believers, John 8:30 KJV) into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:31 KJV). At the end of the day, do you think Jesus’ disciples utterly knew Jesus was the Son of God (John 14:26 KJV, John 20:21 KJV, John 20:22 KJV)? Considering the explosion in genetic knowledge today, it stands to reason in my feeble mind that one could be even more resolved to Jesus’ divine origin than those disciples who walked alongside Jesus!
Therefore, neither Unitarians, nor Trinitarians are playing with a full deck (Matthew 28:19). An “individual religious experience”, as you suggest, seems in my mind to create believers out of non-believers, Freelight. Said “truth” (John 8:32 KJV) “converted” (Matthew 13:15 KJV)
believers (John 8:30 KJV) into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:31 KJV, Matthew 28:19). What is the difference between a believer and a disciple, Freelight? Believers believe Jesus is the Son of God (or God, in the case of Trins?). Disciples utterly knew Jesus was THE Son of God being those two explicitly unveiled testimonies are founded in the Books of Moses that were evidently revealed to them (John 14:26 KJV, John 20:21 KJV, John 20:22 KJV). Paul was quite astute in the Books of Moses… he got the 20-gig download.
Trins Scripturally fabricating Jesus out to be God does not ‘convert’ believers into disciples, btw. Those two testimonies did (John 8:32 KJV). And, that sounds like a job for John 14:26 KJV unveiling Scripture, with particular interest in 1Peter 1:23 KJV. And, mainstream Christianity doesn’t know what went down in Noah’s tent? The seldom appreciated documentation that Noah’s son Japheth was the ‘father’ of the Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV)… Japheth, ‘father’ of the Gentiles, walked into Noah’s tent covered and backwards (Genesis 9:23 KJV). That’s a modest way of saying there’s one thing a man cannot literally perform from that angle
. Appreciating Japheth was the ‘father’ of the Gentiles, Paul left a subtle clue that he utterly understood Noah’s tent scenario (1Corinthians 5:1 KJV). Sure, Paul was more astute in the Books of Moshe than Unitarians or Trinitarians, LOL!
FREELIGHT: But my view of 'God' and 'Christ' may include subtle points of either or any school, as well as transcend them. Texts may be helpful in conceptualizing certain concepts (figures/formulations/relations), but ultimately on an immaterial level, one must have their own individual religious experience to validate an inner 'gnosis', whose authenticity is a matter of subjectivity. "spiritual things must be spiritually discerned”.
1Corinthians 2:10-16, KJV But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
I’m of the persuasion the “deep things of God” are embraced in OT themes…
11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Perhaps comparing the unseen spiritual aspects of the OT, via the spiritual knowledge of the NT? The NT Holy Ghost unveils the spiritual things of the OT. The OT is God’s ‘testimony’, and the NT is Jesus’ ‘testimony’… globally speaking of ‘two witnesses’.
14) 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.
15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Can you imagine ‘searching all things, the deep things of God,’ are veiled in the God’s Word, Freelight? Peter was told to feed Jesus’ sheep; lambs are milk-fed, btw. You do realize sheep feed was unveiled OT knowledge? And, Paul wasn’t talking about pulling stuff out of the depths of one’s own carnal mind like mine. So, Paul, keenly astute in the OT (corroborated prior) made it perfectly clear in my simple mind that he subscribed to John 14:16, 17, 26, KJV as the ‘Medium’ through which the Word of God (primarily OT) is illuminated as one achieves Peter’s notion in 1Peter 1:23 KJV. I hear Paul’s resolve to a specific direction (God’s Word) “revealed”… by an exclusive “Holy Ghost” that’s beyond your transcendental quotation not taken in full context, Freelight: "spiritual things must be spiritually discerned”. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but this expression out of context sounds like a watered down Bible thumper’s cliche, “whosoever committeth sin, is a servant of sin” extrapolated from John 8:34 KJV. I suspect your quotation is a common, mesmerizing plea by Unitarians. Well, it is more appealing than being brow-beaten from pulpit, I suppose.
KAY: Jesus’ divine origin was alluded to in John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV. But, you appear not to have relative respect for the Divine inspiration of the book of John.
FREELIGHT: As a liberal gnostic I actually have enjoyed John in more ways than the other gospels, but you can throw in the Gospel of Thomas and other non-canonical gospels into the mix as well, with some of the intertestamental/apocryphal stuff too
Furthermore, we have more modern religious records which give us more information than the NT gospels on the life/teachings/travels of Jesus such as the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ and the Urantia Papers, to name a few. There is also channeled works as well, and info. gathered from the collective consciousness, subconscious, akashic records and spirit-communications which shed light on the ministry of Jesus some things confirming the synoptic gospels, some things differing from such.
A student of truth considers, researches and investigates all related. If you're going to exalt or exclusivize the gospel of John (used mostly btw for deifying Jesus, since it has more supporting texts), you'll also have to note that it says Jesus did and spoke so much that such accounts could fill a whole library, so the little snippet by John is by no means replete or perfect. But who knows
To presumptuously sum this up, despite your vast journeys, appreciating your prior interest in John, you haven’t unveiled the explicit and succinct divine testimonies (John 8:32 KJV) of John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV that irrefutably corroborated Jesus’ divine origin (John 8:12 KJV, John 8:13 KJV, John 8:17, 18, 19). Evidently, those two revelations from the OT weren’t embraced in your journey? Then, it’s much easier to dilute the divine authenticity of the book of John, and affirm other sources, than to exhaust God’s Word in the OT. On a more contemporary note, more than His disciples, Jesus was indeed a telepathic healer. There are spiritual ‘channelers’ who allegedly heal in the healthcare community, even televangelists. With all due respect to their services rendered, their endeavors seem more like wallet biopsies, although I could be mistaken. And, you suggest there are “channeled works… which shed light on the ministry of Jesus…”? I suppose that has possibilities absent John 14:26 KJV; so, please forgive my skepticism.
KAY: Like I've previously stated... Just because one doesn't know the explicit and succinct details of those two divine testimonies corroborating Jesus' divine origin, such doesn't negate this Scriptural "truth" exists (John 8:32 KJV). One is simply not so illuminated utterly knowing Jesus' was of divine origin, but neither does this mean He isn't, nor does not knowing preempt one's faith, believing Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
FREELIGHT: If we take John's record by its own right, of course the two-fold testimony of Jesus and his Father are pretty 'tight',...but you must take the testimony by FAITH.....and BELIEVE that those words are divinely inspired and preserved. You don't know that they are. In fact, you don't even know if John (which John?) wrote the book, not to mention the redactions in it, pointing to various authors. You choose to believe. On that note, I survey all the records or claims of Jesus speaking and doing (ancient and modern accounts), and evaluate all in the context of the totality of knowledge, then all other means intellectual/spiritual/scientific....and carry on. This includes the full in-flow of subjectivity and objectivity. I admit some things I dont know (am an 'agnostic' on) and other things I may intuit or believe to know on an inner/experiential/reasonable level, so am a 'gnostic' on that level. Where there is 'light', there is 'shadow', in a relative world.
Inherently, John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV can’t be taken in ‘their own light,’ Freelight. That which Jesus “saw with” His Father and “heard from God” were neither exclusively, nor explicitly illuminated in John. Those testimonies embraced historical events. Therefore, the “two-fold testimony of Jesus and his Father” is corroborated elsewhere, like in the OT. I took those two testimonies by faith, believing their illumination is corroborated elsewhere in Scripture, and concluded Jesus was not God, but the Son of God. The fact remains, “
You don’t that they are.”, and the mere mention those two verses were even the divine testimonies of John 8:18 has evidently found you with your knickers ‘round your knees. Sure, I ‘choose to believe’, but I’m led to affirm (John 14:26 KJV).
When one comes to the full OT illumination of those two testimonies, then the divine inspiration of John becomes prima facie along with resolve that Jesus was not God. Neither was exalted Joseph the Pharaoh being a striking parallel, speaking of divine themes. It matters not to me if Fred Flintstone wrote the inspired book of John, none of the literal authors were God. They were inspired, and the themes in John reflect from the other gospels as previously mentioned, even Paul in 1Cor 2:13 KJV correlating with John 14:26 KJV. In an abstract sense, I can ‘see’ God the Creator’s fingerprints on a strand of DNA. And, I can ‘see’ Jesus’ healing miracles being His ‘hand’ upon the DNA of those suffering genetic afflictions originating from Genesis 9:22 KJV, and so, “Cursed be Canaan.” Canaan’s descendants were introduced into the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:7 KJV, Deuteronomy 23:8 KJV, and Deuteronomy 23:9 KJV. Two of Esau’s wives were the Hittite descendants of Heth (Genesis 26:34 KJV), second son of Canaan (Gen 10:15). Perhaps this sheds a little more ‘light’ that Jesus’ genetic healing miracles more than exemplified His divine origin; His miracles were divinely
purposeful: John 9:1 KJV, John 9:2 KJV, John 9:3 KJV, John 9:4 KJV, John 9:5 KJV. It has been respectfully theorized DNA was not the first ‘life form’ on this planet, btw… and, I concluded WE are the aliens here!
Please allow me to break here…
kayaker
