Denial of the deity of Jesus

[kayaker]

Hi kayaker,

As time permits in our busy schedules...

Some interesting thoughts on 'genetic healing' there, which could be a thread-subject of its own...but I'll just touch on a few of your points shortly.

Thanks for your interest, Freelight! Indeed… appreciating God as Creator of DNA, and Jesus a restorer of DNA, such does have rather profoundly divine implications. Do reflect that Jesus was certainly a telepathic healer as well (John 4:49, 50, 51, 52, 53). That opens the door to some rather interesting possibilities in the future!

While Roberts quote of John 8:24 relates within a 'context' of Jesus claiming to be the light of the world, the issue of people 'dying in their sins' is only because they reject Jesus testimony of himself and of his Father, not necessarily the 'belief' that he is somehow deity.

Jesus not only claimed He was the light of the world, Freelight (John 8:12 KJV); He utterly affirmed He was via His and His Father’s two divine testimonies (John 8:17, 18) found in John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV comprising “the truth, and the truth shall make you (believers) free” (John 8:32 KJV). Not knowing the explicit and succinct details of those two testimonies does not inherently refute Jesus’ claim, one is simply not illuminated into Jesus’ discipleship. Jesus being the light of the world (John 8:12 KJV) was the context of “I am he” in Robert’s verse, John 8:24 KJV, although such “truth” was about to be referenced a few verses later to Jesus’ believers interjected into His dialogue with those instigators.

Also in John 8:24 KJV were those “people ‘dying in their sins’” as you offer. They weren’t average people in the temple Freelight, and they definitely were not Jesus’ believers. In that verse, Jesus was explicitly addressing those who “shall die in your sins” being circumcised non-Israelite (John 8:33 KJV) Pharisee priests that challenged (John 8:13, 19, 28) Jesus’ claim (John 8:12 KJV). Their sins included premeditating Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) further illuminated in John 11:47 KJV, John 11:50 KJV, John 11:53 KJV. So, those non-Israelites Jesus said “shall die in your sins” didn’t benignly reject Jesus Freelight, they were plotting His crucifixion.

In addition to those instigators premeditating Jesus’ crucifixion, they didn’t understand Jesus’ notion of “the truth shall make you free” as Jesus directly offered to His believers among the temple crowd (John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV). Please listen again to those instigating detractors’ response and subsequent question to Jesus’ offer of freedom to His believers (John 8:32 KJV):

“They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (John 8:33 KJV).​

Those premeditating instigators, “who shall die in (their) sins”, were evidently not Israelites that had been in bondage in Egypt. The plot thickens being those instigators were not Israelite Jews, but were “Abraham’s seed.” Yet, exploring this finer detail apparently doesn’t embrace everyone’s curiosity, respectfully, although such would appear to invariably be a component of the “truth, and the truth shall make you free”.

Of course this is all relative, being a scenario granted within the writers precontextualized view, since these things can only be within the 'con-text' provided.

Concluding in John 8:24 KJV, “I am he” was definitely Jesus who claimed to be the light of the world corroborated in John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV. And, those folk to whom Jesus said, “ye shall die in your sins” were those circumcised non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV; Romans 9:6, 7; Revelation 2:9, 3:9) premeditating His crucifixion, and not simply doubtful about Jesus’ divine origin: (v.6 of) John 8:1 KJV, John 8:2 KJV, John 8:3 KJV, John 8:4 KJV, John 8:5 KJV, John 8:6 KJV.

The writers of John certainly paint Jesus as being more than just a common man, but how far we take his relationship with God is a matter of discretion and proper relational-context.

I get the impression other NT authors perceived Jesus as being more than just a common man, also. How far we take Jesus’ relationship with God was at least corroborated in John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40KJV. But, I’m not hearing any discrete revelation of those two testimonies from anyone corroborating Jesus’ relationship with God.

Remember, John ever maintains the Sonship of Jesus under the primacy of the Father as 'God'. The Father is ever greater...because he is 'God' (priorly and properly), the First Source and Center, the Father of all.

Yes… I totally appreciate the “Sonship of Jesus” in John 10:31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. Yet, suggesting God is the “Father of all” is incongruent with the gospel of John, Freelight. And, I think I gather the correct impression you don’t give the gospel of John relative credit. I agree God’s the Creator of all, but not the Father of all. Those circumcised non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV), likely new knowledge to this Christian audience, that premeditated Jesus’ crucifixion in John 8:28, John 8:37 KJV, were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:37 KJV). They just weren’t “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV; Abraham was a ‘sperm donor’ in Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4; Romans 9:6, 7). Please listen carefully to their response to Jesus in John 8:41 KJV (my parentheses):

“Ye do the deeds of your father (who was their father?). Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”​

That’s quite interesting, Freelight. There’s no provision in Mosaic Law for as ‘surrogate’ mother as was Hagar. Abraham was married to his half-sister. So they weren’t Israelites or Ishmaelites. Jesus responded, “If God were your Father…” (John 8:42 KJV). I get the impression Jesus didn’t think God was their Father. In fact, Jesus went on to say their father was the devil (John 8:44 KJV), and that they “were not of God” (John 8:47 KJV). And, John 8:12-47 was all about ‘who’s ya daddy’: John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:27 KJV, John 8:28 KJV, John 8:29 KJV, John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 8:41 KJV, John 8:42 KJV John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV.

I suggest exploring the ancestry of those instigators, clearly beyond John’s gospel, connects those pieces of the puzzle, within a mustard seed of faith, that Jesus was indeed telling the “truth”. Until one has accomplished this ancestral journey, to suggest Jesus’ words in John’s gospel are to be taken with a grain of salt, one is not speaking from the perspective of Scriptural illumination, as surely the authors of John’s gospel were having tread that ancestral path, myself.

Also note that it is only in the gospel of John, a later developed work, that Jesus pre-existence or divinity is really expounded upon, as such is pretty sparse in the earlier synoptics. So, you only have the redacted work of John to rely on, a work whose earliest commentators were gnostics -

Thanks for letting me know why I enjoy John’s gospel so much! Being inspired by John’s gospel, I insist the Holy Ghost (John 14:26 KJV) impacted “the redacted work of John to rely on, a work whose earliest commentators were gnostics.” I suppose anyone who doesn't grasp the illumination of John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV would respectfully consider the authors thereof, gnostics. I do, and I recognize the gospel of John was divinely inspired. Have you explicitly figured out who those were that Jesus said “shall die in your sins” (John 8:24 KJV)? Have you come to the illumination they were not Israelites (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV)? And, what about these two testimonies, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV? I’m not hearing answers from anyone, btw. The gnosis of John’s gospel is clearly beyond casual observation (John 14:16 KJV, John 14:17 KJV). It’s not so much the gospel of John didn’t more or less mimic the other gospels. Rather, the gospel of John correlates more with the veiled Books of Moses, particularly John 8 touching on the delineation of Abraham’s progeny, that clearly escapes the multitudes.

in any case,...the text does have Jesus admitting to having a prior fellowship or intimacy with God the Father, but the phrase "you will die in your sins" can be 'spun' in various ways as far as terms go, and this still does not necessarily PROVE Jesus is deity.

Again, Jesus didn’t simply claim to be the light of the world; His and His Father’s two divine testimonies (John 8:17, 18) PROVED Jesus’ claim. Not knowing the discrete details of John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV doesn’t inherently refute Jesus’ claim; such humbly suggests that not all are so called, at least at this moment, into Jesus’ discipleship (Matthew 13:17 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV).

Agreed, without knowing precisely who Jesus was speaking to saying, “you will die in your sins”, opens the gate to the slippery slope. Boney-fingered, flagrum-wielding Bible thumpers have long used Jesus’ words, a few verses later, totally and completely out of context. Perhaps such is a better example of the spin you refer to: “Whosoever committeth sin is a servant of sin” (John 8:34 KJV). Guilt trip from the pulpit, talk about an impediment to faith! I regretfully imagine scant few, if any, realize Jesus was specifically addressing those circumcised non-Israelite descendants of Abraham (John 8:33 KJV) premeditating Jesus’ crucifixion, much less that the sin Jesus was referring to WAS the premeditation of His crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:40 KJV). Jesus clearly wasn’t speaking to His believers in John 8:24 KJV, or in John 8:34 KJV. That’s pretty elementary reasoning, agreed? So, what was the ancestral origin of those detractors, Freelight? It stands to my simple reasoning that such knowledge, such truth, is the ultimate rebuttal burying that flagrum.

That his words indicate that he is of 'God' is granted. (its still relative). The writers obviously had a prefigured terminology and meaning invested in these various terms, writing such to serve their discourse. - Remember, this book was written for a particular religious community of a 'conformed faith' interest, a pre-scribed theology.

Granted “his words indicate that he is of ‘God’…” in John 8:12 KJV; yet, those two testimonies utterly corroborated the “truth” to Jesus’ divine origin. I suppose most authors have an agenda, including the authors of John. Possibly those for whom the book of John was written were more than simply a “religious community of a ‘conformed faith’ interest, a pre-scribed theology”, Freelight. Considering the divine magnitude of those two testimonies, it’s easy for me to imagine the authors of the book of John had full knowledge of Jesus’ divine origin. They knew the discrete details of those two divine testimonies. Never having met Him in person, I suspect they utterly knew “Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:1 KJV, Hebrews 12:2 KJV )

As a final bonus,

As far as how much of Jesus is 'God' and/or 'Man', again a toss-up and probably the biggest debate within the doctrinal history of Christainity, with 'orthodox' and 'heterodox' contendors in the trenches. Hence Unitarian and Trinitarian views still continuing to this day. As I browse and survey this century old contention,...I take a higher resolve by including both views and dimensions inbetween, since much is but a difference of technology and cosmetics

Only knowledgable enough to make a token gesture agreeing with the chaos you refer to Freelight, I can’t help but hang on to those two testimonies being the “final bonus” that clearly not all were chosen, at least for the meanwhile, to grasp. I suspect full illumination will have occurred on a grande scale according to Matthew 24:29 KJV, Matthew 24:30 KJV. Perhaps such discrete illumination will reveal how the cards fell, that were tossed up some 6k years ago. If you can find an ‘orthodox’, ‘heterodox’, Unitarian or Trinitarian who can unveil those two testimonies, let me know! I can’t find one who even knows what went down in Noah’s tent (Genesis 9:22; Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. Much less who those “sons of God” were who hooked up with whoever “the daughters of men” were (Genesis 6:1, 2) ultimately precipitating the flood… yet I digress into His Word.

Indeed, honored with your thoughts and consideration…

kayaker

PS: I kinda like keypurr's little jingle, sorta rings a bell for me!

 

[kayaker]

Now now folks,...I think keypurr's cute little slogan reflects his theology really well - its got a perky little ring to it

You were responding to Keypurr's post:

Originally Posted by keypurr View Post

I love the God of my Lord Jesus Christ

I think Keypurr's is quite a testimony. From your prior post, Freelight:

Remember, John ever maintains the Sonship of Jesus under the primacy of the Father as 'God'. The Father is ever greater...because he is 'God' (priorly and properly), the First Source and Center, the Father of all.

So, I am just a little lacking here, Freelight. Not too unusual for us great unwashed . You don't seem to have any difficulty eloquently debasing Keypurr's position, and refer to your own notion of God the Father founded in another publication suggesting God is "the Father of all." Perhaps that was just a Freudian slip, Freelight? Eve was the "mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20 KJV). But, God was NOT the Father of all, Freelight... do you have any direct Scriptural evidence Jesus was not telling the literal, paternal truth in John 8:41 KJV, John 8:42 KJV, John 8:44 KJV, with rather peculiar interest in John 8:47 KJV?

Can you describe your Spiritual Father in ten words or less, as well and as simply as Keypurr did?

kayaker

 

[RBBI]

@ Kayaker....are you referring to Ham sleeping with Noah's wife? Peace

 

[freelight]

Fill in the blanks.....

Fill in the blanks.....

You were responding to Keypurr's post:


I think Keypurr's is quite a testimony. From your prior post, Freelight:

As I said, its a wonderful slogan. I myself enjoy sporting a more Unitarian Christology, but can explore and expound a Trinitarian view as well, and more.

So, I am just a little lacking here, Freelight. Not too unusual for us great unwashed . You don't seem to have any difficulty eloquently debasing Keypurr's position, and refer to your own notion of God the Father founded in another publication suggesting God is "the Father of all."

I don't see anywhere where I debase keypurr's view,....have you been following my commentary here over the years? Again,...much of what I share agrees with his Unitarian view, and 'God' by nature of his Creatorship, is the 'Father of all', and that's essentially what I mean by saying 'God the Father' is the 'First Source and Center' of all creation (to use that phrase from the Urantia Papers). I have no problem recognizing that. 'God' proper is The Universal Father.

Perhaps that was just a Freudian slip, Freelight? Eve was the "mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20 KJV). But, God was NOT the Father of all, Freelight... do you have any direct Scriptural evidence Jesus was not telling the literal, paternal truth in John 8:41 KJV, John 8:42 KJV, John 8:44 KJV, with rather peculiar interest in John 8:47 KJV?

Note that your passages above are only found in John, a later theological expansion from the previous gospels, and such only refers to the attitude, intention and spirit espoused in those rejecting Jesus, whose intent was to harm/kill Jesus. Obviously the one 'fathering' these kind of feelings towards Jesus was not 'God'. Such is therefore situational, describing the murderous intent of these persons, whose motives were 'satanic'. In other words 'God' was not fathering or inspiring the motives of these persons.

Now if you want to split hairs over whether these human souls were actually 'children of the devil'....and not the offspring of 'God',...well...things can get messy there in 'assumptions'. I don't think one needs to go over and beyond the context here.

Can you describe your Spiritual Father in ten words or less, as well and as simply as Keypurr did?

Loving Father. (there u go,...hows that for 2?)

 

[kayaker]

@ Kayaker....are you referring to Ham sleeping with Noah's wife? Peace

Welcome to TOL, RBBI!

I wasn't particularly referring to Ham doing the tango with his mother in the prior post, if that's the post you're referring to. But, I certainly subscribe to that notion connecting the dots between Genesis 9:22 KJV and Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV.

Canaan was the cursed progeny of that tango to my finding. But, do realize Ham and his WIFE were grandparents of Nimrod, king of Babel, if that throws up any red flags. The descendants of Canaan (progeny of Ham and his MOTHER) were explicitly named in the books of Moses, alongside the then redundant title, "Canaanites". The descendants of Canaan were the Hittites (descendants of Canaan's son Heth), Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, etc (Genesis 10:15, 16, 17, 18). Take a listen to these rosters where the title "Canaanites" is used redundantly alongside named descendants of Canaan: Genesis 15:21, Exodus 23:23, Numbers 14:25, Deuteronomy 7:1... even Joshua 12:8, 24:11, 2Samuel 24:7, Ezra 9:1. Therefore, I conclude the OT use of the title "Canaanites" was a geographical title for the descendants of Ham and his WIFE, who resided in the Land of Canaan (Genesis 10:19, 20), while Ham's descendants via Canaan were specifically named.

Consequently, I conclude Isaiah's Messianic progenitor (Isaiah 65:9) hooked up with a "Canaanitess" (1Chronicles 2:3; Genesis 38:1, 2) 'daughter' of Ham and his WIFE! Judah's Canaanitess wife wasn't a descendant of Canaan... she was a descendant of Ham and his wife! Well, there's actually more to that story... but, that gets close enough. The descendants of Isaiah's Messianic progenitor (Isaiah 65:9) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, a geographical title for the descendants of Ham and his wife) were the circumcised Shelanites (Numbers 26:20) that instigated the crucifixion being that "untoward generation" Peter warned the Israelite Jews about in Acts 2:22 KJV, Acts 2:23 KJV, and Acts 2:40 KJV. Jesus descended from Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:33). And, I don't think it's much of a stretch to discern a little sibling rivalry between the Shelanites and the Pharzites (and Zarhites, Numbers 26:20) as through whom Messiah would arrive! And, that was indeed the incendiary quandary of the day (Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV).

Considering Ham's suspicious wife being the grandmother of Nimrod, king of Babel, suggests Ham's wife was a 'daughter' of Cain; and, I suggest Ham's wife was the first degree daughter of Cain's great...grandson Lamech (Genesis 4:16, 17, 18). Lament's daughter Naamah (Genesis 4:22, 23), who I suggest was Ham's wife pouring wine in Noah's tent that night, was the only eligible female named between Eve and Sarah, about 19 generations. That's rather mysterious, but I can only toss that on the table with a mustard grain.

Hope this helps clarify my fallible rendering, RBBI. Thanks for asking!

Peace...

kayaker

 

[RBBI]

Welcome to TOL, RBBI!

I wasn't particularly referring to Ham doing the tango with his mother in the prior post, if that's the post you're referring to. But, I certainly subscribe to that notion connecting the dots between Genesis 9:22 KJV and Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV.

Canaan was the cursed progeny of that tango to my finding. But, do realize Ham and his WIFE were grandparents of Nimrod, king of Babel, if that throws up any red flags. The descendants of Canaan (progeny of Ham and his MOTHER) were explicitly named in the books of Moses, alongside the then redundant title, "Canaanites". The descendants of Canaan were the Hittites (descendants of Canaan's son Heth), Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, etc (Genesis 10:15, 16, 17, 18). Take a listen to these rosters where the title "Canaanites" is used redundantly alongside named descendants of Canaan: Genesis 15:21, Exodus 23:23, Numbers 14:25, Deuteronomy 7:1... even Joshua 12:8, 24:11, 2Samuel 24:7, Ezra 9:1. Therefore, I conclude the OT use of the title "Canaanites" was a geographical title for the descendants of Ham and his WIFE, who resided in the Land of Canaan (Genesis 10:19, 20), while Ham's descendants via Canaan were specifically named.

Consequently, I conclude Isaiah's Messianic progenitor (Isaiah 65:9) hooked up with a "Canaanitess" (1Chronicles 2:3; Genesis 38:1, 2) 'daughter' of Ham and his WIFE! Judah's Canaanitess wife wasn't a descendant of Canaan... she was a descendant of Ham and his wife! Well, there's actually more to that story... but, that gets close enough. The descendants of Isaiah's Messianic progenitor (Isaiah 65:9) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, a geographical title for the descendants of Ham and his wife) were the circumcised Shelanites (Numbers 26:20) that instigated the crucifixion being that "untoward generation" Peter warned the Israelite Jews about in Acts 2:22 KJV, Acts 2:23 KJV, and Acts 2:40 KJV. Jesus descended from Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:33). And, I don't think it's much of a stretch to discern a little sibling rivalry between the Shelanites and the Pharzites (and Zarhites, Numbers 26:20) as through whom Messiah would arrive! And, that was indeed the incendiary quandary of the day (Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV).

Considering Ham's suspicious wife being the grandmother of Nimrod, king of Babel, suggests Ham's wife was a 'daughter' of Cain; and, I suggest Ham's wife was the first degree daughter of Cain's great...grandson Lamech (Genesis 4:16, 17, 18). Lament's daughter Naamah (Genesis 4:22, 23), who I suggest was Ham's wife pouring wine in Noah's tent that night, was the only eligible female named between Eve and Sarah, about 19 generations. That's rather mysterious, but I can only toss that on the table with a mustard grain.

Hope this helps clarify my fallible rendering, RBBI. Thanks for asking!

Peace...

kayaker

Thanks......Well, the way I understand it, "uncovering his father's nakedness" was an idiom for it. So you can kinda see the correlation in the "NT" with the scripture about love COVERING a multitude of sins. Thanks for your thoughts on this; lots to consider. Peace

 

[kayaker]

As I said, its a wonderful slogan.

Keypurr’s post #68, page 5 to Apple7:

Let me say it again for you:
I love the God of my Lord Jesus Christ

Freelight’s post #110, page 8:

Now now folks,...I think keypurr's cute little slogan reflects his theology really well - its got a perky little ring to it

Keypurr’s is called a testimony, not a slogan, in my neck of the woods, Freelight, as you suggest, it “reflects his theology really well.” Of course, I’m just chief blind wild hawg of the buffalowlife clan, LOL! So, sure… In addition to Apple7, you also debased Keypurr’s sincerely spoken testimony being a “cute little slogan…” that’s “got a perky little ring to it.” I think his declaration embracing the deity of Jesus is succinct, explicit, and self evident. And, you think Keypurr’s testimony is a “cute little slogan… “ that’s “got a perky little ring to it”. Perhaps that’s not condescending, but it is naysaying without explicit and succinct Scriptural rebuttal. Yet, you’ve at least generally offered discount to the Divine inspiration of the book of John, shifting from foot to foot.

I myself enjoy sporting a more Unitarian Christology, but can explore and expound a Trinitarian view as well, and more.

So, if I gather your notion correctly, you haven’t been able to sink your teeth into Scripture? Perhaps I’ll throw a little more meat on the table, for the sport of it, although I’m not expecting an explicit, Scriptural rebuttal, regretfully.

I don't see anywhere where I debase keypurr's view,....have you been following my commentary here over the years?

With sincere respect to your accolade Freelight, its about Keypurr’s “cute little slogan… that’s “got a perky little ring to it.” We’ve got an expression in the south: Don’t micturate on my leg and tell me it’s raining, LOL! I don’t fathom any fatal flaw with being frank, frankly. I just like to hear a little explicit, Scriptural rebuttal from time to time to corroborate one’s opinion contrary to another’s testimony. I know folks who boast they’ve got thirty years’ experience drilling a hole in pieces in steel that’d fill the Titanic. Well, it’s more like they have one day’s experience x 30 years. So, how seasoned in the Bible are you, tossing the book of John aside?

Again,…much of what I share agrees with his Unitarian view, and 'God' by nature of his Creatorship, is the 'Father of all', and that's essentially what I mean by saying 'God the Father' is the 'First Source and Center' of all creation (to use that phrase from the Urantia Papers). I have no problem recognizing that. 'God' proper is The Universal Father.

From your abstract perspective, I agree in the abyss of abstractness. You’ve “no problem recognizing that” doesn’t sound like a firm footing, fanning your feet in the fire. Are you, or are you not suggesting Almighty God is a literal father to a flesh Being? Do you utterly believe in your heart of hearts that Jesus was God’s literal, begotten Son? According to Luke, by Hebrew patrilineal mention, God had a lot of sons: …Luke 3:36, 37, with particular interest in Luke 3:38 KJV. Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.

Unless I’m blind, deaf and mute, and I’ve been so honored… what you shared in your post belittled Keypurr’s obvious testimony. So, I get the general, casual impression that you generally and casually don’t subscribe to his theology. That’s cool… please be a little more succinct, Freelight. Frankly, I’m getting the rather distinct impression you’ve not sunk your teeth into His Word to make such a clear testimony circumventing taking on a little heat, yourself. But, it’s totally fine that Scripture hasn’t afforded you this esoteric insight (Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 13:17 KJV, 1Peter 1:23 KJV). That’s a job for the Holy Spirit of Truth in John 14:26 KJV. Do you think those were Jesus’ words in the book of John? See, I don’t think the Holy Spirit vaporized into the abyss of abstractness following Pentecost. And, I entirely subscribe to the notion the book of John was Divinely inspired. Perhaps its not flawless, but… parallel themes by different authors tend to resonate truth in the grand theme of things suggesting Divine inspiration.

Note that your passages above are only found in John, a later theological expansion from the previous gospels, and such only refers to the attitude, intention and spirit espoused in those rejecting Jesus, whose intent was to harm/kill Jesus.

Those verses were indeed unique to the Divinely inspired book of John, for which you don’t seem to have relative respect for your aforementioned reasons, particularly the “Sonship of Jesus”. Do you think Jesus’ words in John are authentic? Apparently those who included said book in the Scriptures agreed it was Divinely inspired. Do you not subscribe to their inspiration, then? So, sure Freelight… those verses were unique, yet the theme of John 8 indeed parallels Matthew 23, Luke 3, even Acts 2, I beg your patience.

Yet, I’m quite impressed you’re finding a firmer footing that those Jesus said “will die in your sins” didn’t simply have a casual disagreement with Jesus; they were on a mission with a premeditated agenda and a solution: crucifixion of a righteous man. That verse John 8:24 KJV sorta resonates with Matthew 23:33 KJV, even John the Baptizer’s words in Luke 3:7 KJV speaking to those same non-Israelite, instigating detractors.
Jesus’ crucifixion was premeditated with malice and forethought, Freelight. That get’s folk the death penalty in a number of states! Have you ever met a premeditating murderer before the crime, Freelight? Remind me to tell that story sometime. He was euthanized, and I’d have utter resolve to personally push the plunger looking into his eyes as he took his last breath without remorse.

What about Cain, for example… Without remorse, Cain premeditated the cold-blooded murder of “righteous Abel” (Mathew 23:35 KJV), buried his brother’s body, and lied to Almighty God about it (Genesis 4:8, 9, 10). Perhaps I’m just having another resonating auditory hallucination; but, does Cain’s “intent…to harm/kill” (using your words) “righteous Abel” (Matthew 23:35 KJV) not resonate with John 8:34 KJV, John 8:37 KJV and John 8:38 KJV? Uninspired Jewish theologians might suggest such was an “undesignated coincidence”, which at least leaves the door open for future consideration (John 14:26 KJV).

So, you don’t think Cain’s descendants survived the flood? Let’s take a look at John’s theme from chapter 8 in another gospel. Jesus’ words to those same detractors in the book of John:

Matthew 23:29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, KJV (my parentheses) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous. 30) And say, If we had been in the days of our (literal) fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the (literal) children of them which killed the prophets. 32) Fill ye up then the measure of your (literal) fathers. 33) Ye serpents (figuratively), ye (literal) generation of (figurative) vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city (‘they’ seem to have a premeditating, predatory mindset): 35) That upon you (that “generation”) may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel… (who killed Abel, Freelight?)​

Who killed Abel? I’m not refuting the ‘satanic’ spiritual aspect in the least, Freelight. In fact, I emphatically agree beyond your ‘cautious’ mention. Satan was and remains the father of lies (John 8:44 KJV, Genesis 3:4, 5, 13). Do you think a hypocrite is a liar of liars, then? Jesus called His non-Israelite detractors (John 8:33 KJV) “hypocrites” seven times in Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 225, 27, 29. Surely Jesus wasn’t speaking to His lost sheep Israelite Pharzites (and Zarhites, Numbers 26:20). There’s that humming sound again as I listen to Revelation 2:9, 3:9. What you’re not grasping in Matthew 23, is Jesus said they were the literal children of their literal fathers who literally killed the prophets, etc. Do you believe Jesus was telling the literal truth? Who killed Abel? John chapter 8:12-47 was literally ALL about ‘who’s ya daddy (Jesus’ included)’: John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:26 KJV, John 8:27 KJV, John 8:28 KJV, John 8:29 KJV, John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 8:41 KJV, John 8:42 KJV, John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV, as was Matthew 23.

But, you can’t fathom the notion evil walks in the flesh among us? Who was that “generation” Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23:33 KJV? They were those non-Israelite alleged “Jews” (John 8:33 KJV; Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7; Revelation 2:9, 3:9) premeditating Jesus’ crucifixion. Sure, Freelight, you’re totally correct the theme in John 8 was previously found in Matthew, 23. And, John’s theme also resonated through Peter from Acts:

Acts 2:22, 23, 39, 40, KJV “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know: 23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:” “39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION.”​

Who was that “untoward generation” that instigated Jesus’ crucifixion, Freelight? Can you imagine a little sibling rivalry between the descendants of Isaiah’s Messianic progenitor (Isaiah 65:9) who sired progeny via his “Canaanitess” wife (1Chronicles 2:3; Genesis 38:1, 2, 12), and sired progeny via his daughter-in-law Tamar, who played the harlot (Genesis 38:26, 29, 30)? Can you fathom the quandary in those days, and prior, being whether Messiah would be a circumcised Shelanite, or a Pharzite (Numbers 26:20)? Jesus was an Israelite Pharzite Jew (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:33). And, those instigators of the crucifixion were Shelanite alleged “Jews” (John 8:33 KJV) being “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:37 KJV) via Judah’s Canaanitess wife, daughter of Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2; 1Chronicles 2:3). Judah’s father-in-law, Shuah was one of “the children of Keturah”, NOT a “son” of her husband, Abraham (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4; Galatians 4:22 KJV). Jesus didn’t seem to think his detractors were “Abraham’s children” either, btw (John 8:39 KJV). That’s another one of those rather striking parallels resonating the works of several Bible authors. Or, perhaps I’m delusional?

So, rest assured Freelight, those instigating Jesus’ crucifixion didn’t just have a casual disagreement about who Jesus was. They enviously accused Jesus of making Himself out to be God, and Jesus concluded He was the Son of God (John 10:31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). Doesn’t John’s notion Jesus’ “Sonship” resonate with Peter’s mention in Acts 2:23 KJV? Jesus’ mere existence performing such supernatural miracles (John 3:1, 2) ‘legitimized’ Isaiah’s Messianic progenitor’s progeny via his daughter-in-law Tamar, from whom Jesus descended, and to whom Jesus was sent (Matthew 1:3; Luke 3:33; Matthew 10:5, 6, 15:24; John 20:20, 21). Jesus was sent to the fatherless (Genesis 38:26 KJV) Pharzites and Zarhites (Genesis 38:29, 30; Numbers 26:20) who were predominately the lost sheep of the house of Israel. By ‘legitimizing’ the lost sheep Pharzites and Zarhites; Jesus vicariously unveiled Judah’s Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20) were mamzerim (progeny of a forbidden marriage: ’bastards’, Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV). Isaiah’s Messianic progenitor’s relationship with his Canaanitess wife (Genesis 38:1, 2; 1Chronicles 2:3) was contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, affirmed some 1,400 years later by Ezra 9:1, 2, as constituting a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:7 KJV). Jesus was a descendant of the “remnant to escape” (Ezra 9:8 KJV). The unsung and magnificent heroine Tamar, who risked death by fire (Genesis 38:24), played the harlot to continue Isaiah’s Messianic progenitor Judah’s lineage that would ultimately produce Isaiah’s Messiah (Isaiah 65:9). If not for Tamar, there would be no ‘tribe’ of Judah: 1Chronicles 4:1 specifically excluding the Shelanites, Numbers 26:20; 1Chronicles 4:21 KJV, 1Chronicles 4:22 KJV.

Obviously the one 'fathering' these kind of feelings towards Jesus was not 'God'. Such is therefore situational, describing the murderous intent of these persons, whose motives were 'satanic'. In other words 'God' was not fathering or inspiring the motives of these persons.

Agreed as you suggest Freelight, and them some! Satan was their father of lies (John 8:44 KJV; Genesis 3:4, 5, 13), and their flesh father was Cain… with but a mustard seed (Mat 23:29 KJV, Mat23:30 KJV, Mat 23:31 KJV, Mat 23:32 KJV, Mat 23:33 KJV, Mat 23:34 KJV, Mat 23:35 KJV). Am I correct that you’re resolved those Jesus said “will die in your sins” in Robert’s verse John 8:24 KJV, that Jesus was speaking the truth? Nonetheless, I’ve the impression you’re glossing over their flesh ancestry, at least to Cain, of those non-Israelites who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion. That is neither ‘orthodox’, ‘heterodox’, Unitarian, Trinitarian, or anywhere in between, btw. And, I’m certainly not a vegetarian, lol!

Now if you want to split hairs over whether these human souls were actually 'children of the devil'....and not the offspring of 'God',...well...things can get messy there in 'assumptions'. I don't think one needs to go over and beyond the context here.

God is Creator, for our purpose here. Satan is the father of lies, right (Genesis 3:4, 5, 13)? Can you imagine Satan then being a pro-creator (Genesis 3:14, 15)? Why didn’t Cain get the death penalty since he premeditated and cold-bloodedly shed “the blood of righteous Abel” (Matthew 23:35 KJV), buried his brother’s body, and lied to Almighty God about it without remorse (Genesis 4:8, 9, 10)? In fact, Cain went to Nod, took a wife, and built a city (Genesis 4:16, 17, KJV). How was that not a reward for Cain’s dastardly deeds?

Rest assured, such ain’t this cowboy’s first rodeo ! And, I can split and pit a brace of conies as well as the next guy. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer here, but I can still cut the Mustard. Perhaps when you conclude Jesus’ account in Matthew 23:33 KJV, Matthew 23:34 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV corroborated by John the Baptizer in Luke 3:7 KJV, Luke 3:8 KJV, corroborated in John 8:44 KJV, resonating with Peter in Acts 2:40 KJV, even Stephen in Acts 7:51, 52… when you conclude those non-Israelite detractors were descendants of Cain fulfilling Genesis 3:14, 15, we might just back up a little further and wallow in His Word.

Loving Father. (there u go,...hows that for 2?)

With sincere respect for your appreciated mention Freelight, I entirely prefer Keypurr’s “cute little slogan… “ that’s “got a perky little ring to it” that he loves the explicit God of his Lord Jesus Christ (as distinctly do I) being the literal Father of Jesus . I admonish Keypur’s faith as entirely greater than mine, btw. Even though one may disagree with ole Pop’s theology, Keypurr’s resolve is steadfast, standing firmly with both feet. Have you found any explicit revelations of those two Divine testimonies (John 8:17, 18) that corroborate Jesus’ divine origin (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:49 KJV) being the “the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32), Freelight? Undoubtedly, in my feeble mind prone to delusions, the authors of John most certainly did… leaving a little space for John 14:26 KJV to resonate the Divine inspiration of His Word, the book of John, included.

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

Thanks......Well, the way I understand it, "uncovering his father's nakedness" was an idiom for it. So you can kinda see the correlation in the "NT" with the scripture about love COVERING a multitude of sins. Thanks for your thoughts on this; lots to consider. Peace

Dude!

Thanks for your insight there, RBBI! I've been debating this idiom in my feeble mind, prone to delusions (LOL!), for the last week... and, your mention definitely brings my quandary into better focus. Indeed, much to consider, RBBI... The Bible is irrefutably, in my mind, the most phenomenal mystery, respectfully, ever written... mysteries spanning four thousand years of human history... gotta be Divinely inspired!

kayaker

 

[RBBI]

Dude!

Thanks for your insight there, RBBI! I've been debating this idiom in my feeble mind, prone to delusions (LOL!), for the last week... and, your mention definitely brings my quandary into better focus. Indeed, much to consider, RBBI... The Bible is irrefutably, in my mind, the most phenomenal mystery, respectfully, ever written... mysteries spanning four thousand years of human history... gotta be Divinely inspired!

kayaker

Absolutely; isn't it awesome beyond words? Sometimes when you "see" things it's truly like you're standing on holy ground, ya know? Peace

 

[freelight]

freelight has a cute little bubbly side,...it comes out sometimes

freelight has a cute little bubbly side,...it comes out sometimes

freelight wrote:

Now now folks,...I think keypurr's cute little slogan reflects his theology really well - its got a perky little ring to it

Here is keypurr's 'testimony' (kayaker insists it be 'dignified' as a 'testimony')

"I love the God of my Lord Jesus Christ"

Keypurr’s is called a testimony, not a slogan, in my neck of the woods, Freelight, as you suggest, it “reflects his theology really well.” Of course, I’m just chief blind wild hawg of the buffalowlife clan, LOL! So, sure… In addition to Apple7, you also debased Keypurr’s sincerely spoken testimony being a “cute little slogan…” that’s “got a perky little ring to it.” I think his declaration embracing the deity of Jesus is succinct, explicit, and self evident. And, you think Keypurr’s testimony is a “cute little slogan… “ that’s “got a perky little ring to it”. Perhaps that’s not condescending, but it is naysaying without explicit and succinct Scriptural rebuttal. Yet, you’ve at least generally offered discount to the Divine inspiration of the book of John, shifting from foot to foot.

Alright, lets nip this in bud before harping on it further. Shall we? Lets review again, - my statement above about keypurr's 'slogan', and I have no problem with calling it that since it qualifies as being a 'slogan' (protests aside), was the natural response to witnessing the same ole Unitarian/Trinitarian debates revolving around keypurr's beliefs..over and over and over again over the years, - my perky little snippet is me smirking a bit over it since I find aspects of the constant 'circular reasoning' (going on on both sides of the debate mind you) as becoming 'tedious'. The merry-go-round can get rather dizzying the longer you stay on it.

So far, I haven't heard keypurr offended at my words as of yet,....and if he is, he can speak for himself. As far as Apple 7 goes, I've held my ground with him on numerous occasions, and of course do not agree with such a rigid dogmatic assumption of his "concept" of the Trinity (sanitized to orthodox perfections). Now keypurr's theology is good to contest traditional-orthodox Christology, but so far over the years....its just the same ole ferry ride with popcorn on the side. Since I myself have my own forms of 'Christology' that I may gravitate towards or advocate at any given time, I'm equally fine with keeping a more fluid approach, since points of view can change, and revelation is ever progressive.

If anyone feels 'offended' or 'scathed' by my words, which are reactionary from the centuries old doctrinal disputes ...like a record jumping between two scratch-grooves going nowhere, but 'repeating' themselves...well, I guess you can transcend that and see it as such

 

[kayaker]

Absolutely; isn't it awesome beyond words? Sometimes when you "see" things it's truly like you're standing on holy ground, ya know? Peace

Indeed a kindred Spirit, RBBI! Peter said we are "born again... by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1Peter 1:23 KJV). Through studying His Word we are most definitely standing on holy ground. Here's a little agate that I happened to stumble across a few years back... Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV. With the rather ignorant thought a fold was foal, and therefore "seventy and sevenfold" meant generations, as a mare births a foal (my equine skills are more than lacking, LOL!)... I went to Luke 3:38 and began counting with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth, wondering what might be going on in "seventy and sevenfold" generations to corroborate this wild theory that "fold" was referring to numbers of generations. Just rooting around like a blind wild hawg... I had to count three times. Just blew me away!

I both admire and share your enthusiasm, RBBI!

kayaker

 

[freelight]

terms............

terms............

Perhaps that’s not condescending, but it is naysaying without explicit and succinct Scriptural rebuttal. Yet, you’ve at least generally offered discount to the Divine inspiration of the book of John, shifting from foot to foot.

So, if I gather your notion correctly, you haven’t been able to sink your teeth into Scripture? Perhaps I’ll throw a little more meat on the table, for the sport of it, although I’m not expecting an explicit, Scriptural rebuttal, regretfully.

I've never been an advocate of total inerrancy of the Bible (so far as its been 'canonized), and that should come as no surprise to anyone who knows my eclectic theology, since you cant limit the infinite to a book, although some books may be more inspiring and 'true' on a 'meaning' and 'value' level. I don't need 'chapter and verse' to support my commentaries, but will include such if I feel they have referential value, of course. Since I often exposit or expound on something more on its conceptual/principle/meaning/value level,....I don't need all the technical posits of 'passages' unless I'm doing a commentary on such. (we've done such on other religious traditional texts such as the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas/Upanishads, etc.)

I've never contested Jesus having a 'God' and 'Father' which is evident in him being the Son of God by definition, origination and relationship.

With sincere respect to your accolade Freelight, its about Keypurr’s “cute little slogan… that’s “got a perky little ring to it.” We’ve got an expression in the south: Don’t micturate on my leg and tell me it’s raining, LOL! I don’t fathom any fatal flaw with being frank, frankly. I just like to hear a little explicit, Scriptural rebuttal from time to time to corroborate one’s opinion contrary to another’s testimony. I know folks who boast they’ve got thirty years’ experience drilling a hole in pieces in steel that’d fill the Titanic. Well, it’s more like they have one day’s experience x 30 years. So, how seasoned in the Bible are you, tossing the book of John aside?

My more intimate Bible studies have been in the past during my 'born again Christian' years, but since then I've expanded my studies multi-culturally, with many different texts, traditions and schools,...I see no reason to limit myself to one 'version', 'concept', 'denomination' of 'God', or 'Christ' for that matter.

Truth is universal,...just viewpoints differ.....

 

[kayaker]

Here is keypurr's 'testimony' (kayaker insists it be 'dignified' as a 'testimony')

"I love the God of my Lord Jesus Christ"



Alright, lets nip this in bud before harping on it further. Shall we? Lets review again, - my statement above about keypurr's 'slogan', and I have no problem with calling it that since it qualifies as being a 'slogan' (protests aside), was the natural response to witnessing the same ole Unitarian/Trinitarian debates revolving around keypurr's beliefs..over and over and over again over the years, - my perky little snippet is me smirking a bit over it since I find aspects of the constant 'circular reasoning' (going on on both sides of the debate mind you) as becoming 'tedious'. The merry-go-round can get rather dizzying the longer you stay on it.

So far, I haven't heard keypurr offended at my words as of yet,....and if he is, he can speak for himself. As far as Apple 7 goes, I've held my ground with him on numerous occasions, and of course do not agree with such a rigid dogmatic assumption of his "concept" of the Trinity (sanitized to orthodox perfections). Now keypurr's theology is good to contest traditional-orthodox Christology, but so far over the years....its just the same ole ferry ride with popcorn on the side. Since I myself have my own forms of 'Christology' that I may gravitate towards or advocate at any given time, I'm equally fine with keeping a more fluid approach, since points of view can change, and revelation is ever progressive.

If anyone feels 'offended' or 'scathed' by my words, which are reactionary from the centuries old doctrinal disputes ...like a record jumping between two scratch-grooves going nowhere, but 'repeating' themselves...well, I guess you can transcend that and see it as such

Indeed, Freelight... at the marital alter for those of Christian persuasion at least, we vow our love to our betrothed in a public setting. Perhaps if one's been to one wedding, then one's seen 'em all. Perhaps if one's doing the vowing, there's a different context all together. Keypurr expressed his vow to his spiritually betrothed, and I share this same vow. Evidently, this specific vow is not a component of your spiritual journey being you consider this vow, this public testimony, to be merely a slogan. This I easily respect.

The commitment to marriage is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in both regards. But, there are indeed spiritual marriages of a different nature, to a betrothed not as explicitly expressed as Keypurr's, or mine for the matter. 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. However, I admire the notion you left the door somewhat cracked open that revelation is ever progressive... indeed!

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.

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. 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.

Both my parents essentially testified they were my parents, found on my birth certificate, even though I don't recall either's contribution, lol! Being raised by my parents, the second child notion one might be adopted, vanishes. I tell my younger siblings the only reason they're here was that birth control pills weren't on the market yet, ROFLOL!

Short of a DNA test... it's all just ink on paper being none of us are witnesses to Jesus' divine origin, either. Yet, that doesn't negate those two divine testimonies being the equivalent to our own conceptions, births, and birth certificates. My spiritual adoption papers were signed with the precious blood of the Lamb, a Pharzite-Israelite Jew (Matthew 1:3 KJV, Luke 3:33), and that explicit distinction is quite likely alien to the Christian community, Jewish either, for that matter!

It's a rather interesting phenomenon common in days not long past, that the first born, when they figured out the birds and the bees... the firstborn invariably started counting backwards from their birth date. I suppose there's just something reassuring resolving concerns one might just be a 'sperm of the moment' baby. And, Messiah Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied some "seventy and sevenfold" generations prior (Genesis 4:24 KJV, Luke 3:38-23). I get the impression Jesus was not a 'sperm of the moment' conception. And, I gain much assurance knowing this as but a small component in my utter resolve of Jesus' divine origin.

A significant component of my resolve includes the magnificence of Jesus' genetic healing miracles, to my finding. Jesus made mention of this significance as He was accused of blasphemy in John 10:36 KJV, John 10:37 KJV, John 10:38 KJV. This is a profound revelation to Jesus' divine origin, particularly realizing the telepathic difference between His, and His disciples' methods. I'm not sure if you've been in this arena; but, parents of an afflicted child, through their own DNA, bare a tremendous burden they are the cause of their precious child's suffering: How can God allow this to happen to a blessed child? You may find it interesting, but Noah's son Ham was the father of heritable genetic afflictions (Genesis 9:22 KJV, Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV). So, there's a glimpse to the accuracy Jesus' answer in John 9:1, 2, 3, although there's more to that story.

Please allow me to take a look at your next appreciated post...

kayaker

 

[keypurr]

Here is keypurr's 'testimony' (kayaker insists it be 'dignified' as a 'testimony')

"I love the God of my Lord Jesus Christ"



Alright, lets nip this in bud before harping on it further. Shall we? Lets review again, - my statement above about keypurr's 'slogan', and I have no problem with calling it that since it qualifies as being a 'slogan' (protests aside), was the natural response to witnessing the same ole Unitarian/Trinitarian debates revolving around keypurr's beliefs..over and over and over again over the years, - my perky little snippet is me smirking a bit over it since I find aspects of the constant 'circular reasoning' (going on on both sides of the debate mind you) as becoming 'tedious'. The merry-go-round can get rather dizzying the longer you stay on it.

So far, I haven't heard keypurr offended at my words as of yet,....and if he is, he can speak for himself. As far as Apple 7 goes, I've held my ground with him on numerous occasions, and of course do not agree with such a rigid dogmatic assumption of his "concept" of the Trinity (sanitized to orthodox perfections). Now keypurr's theology is good to contest traditional-orthodox Christology, but so far over the years....its just the same ole ferry ride with popcorn on the side. Since I myself have my own forms of 'Christology' that I may gravitate towards or advocate at any given time, I'm equally fine with keeping a more fluid approach, since points of view can change, and revelation is ever progressive.

If anyone feels 'offended' or 'scathed' by my words, which are reactionary from the centuries old doctrinal disputes ...like a record jumping between two scratch-grooves going nowhere, but 'repeating' themselves...well, I guess you can transcend that and see it as such

Freelight I am not offended, you have been my friend for years now and we have always respected each others views.

kayaker is also one I respect, he always gives reasons for his faith.

I believe what matters most is where the heart is.

 

[freelight]

How is Jesus divine?

How is Jesus divine?

Indeed, Freelight... at the marital alter for those of Christian persuasion at least, we vow our love to our betrothed in a public setting. Perhaps if one's been to one wedding, then one's seen 'em all. Perhaps if one's doing the vowing, there's a different context all together. Keypurr expressed his vow to his spiritually betrothed, and I share this same vow. Evidently, this specific vow is not a component of your spiritual journey being you consider this vow, this public testimony, to be merely a slogan. This I easily respect.

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'.

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

The commitment to marriage is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in both regards. But, there are indeed spiritual marriages of a different nature, to a betrothed not as explicitly expressed as Keypurr's, or mine for the matter.

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.

I think 'jaded' might be a bit too extravagant a term, could be a minor backfire of Christological burnout :crackup:

However, I admire the notion you left the door somewhat cracked open that revelation is ever progressive... indeed!

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.

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.

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. 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".

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.

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 :idunno:

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.

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.

Both my parents essentially testified they were my parents, found on my birth certificate, even though I don't recall either's contribution, lol! Being raised by my parents, the second child notion one might be adopted, vanishes. I tell my younger siblings the only reason they're here was that birth control pills weren't on the market yet, ROFLOL!

Short of a DNA test... it's all just ink on paper being none of us are witnesses to Jesus' divine origin, either. Yet, that doesn't negate those two divine testimonies being the equivalent to our own conceptions, births, and birth certificates. My spiritual adoption papers were signed with the precious blood of the Lamb, a Pharzite-Israelite Jew (Matthew 1:3 KJV, Luke 3:33), and that explicit distinction is quite likely alien to the Christian community, Jewish either, for that matter!

Yep,....its all just ink-blots/words on paper; you don't even know if a historical Jesus existed, or is some configuration of a myth maybe built upon a particular man or men, but later historicized, or aspects of the historical mythologized (play-reversal). As you may know, whole books are written on this subject with many dovetails to chase. - one could spend many lifetimes studying all this. I have a sense I've been here before

As far as 'blood washings' and 'blood-atonement' concepts,...well,...my former thread 'Atonement without blood' and my challenging that concept elsewhere are well accounted for here. Otherwise, you can use 'blood' figuratively of course. As a mystic and charismatic,...I do not discount that faith in the 'blood of Jesus' has its effects, but I'm not sure if its more the 'faith' of the aspirant than that actual 'blood of Jesus' or some combination thereof (wrap your noggin around that mystery).

I respect my religious history,....so do not discount the potential of 'faith', its dynamic powers and all, but the 'vicarious blood-atonement' concept I don't currently buy. Father's love or forgiveness does not have to be earned by blood-sacrifice, but by simple repentance, returning to him with heart and soul, in sincerity, returning to what is right, returning to integrity, truth, honesty, humility.

It's a rather interesting phenomenon common in days not long past, that the first born, when they figured out the birds and the bees... the firstborn invariably started counting backwards from their birth date. I suppose there's just something reassuring resolving concerns one might just be a 'sperm of the moment' baby. And, Messiah Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied some "seventy and sevenfold" generations prior (Genesis 4:24 KJV, Luke 3:38-23). I get the impression Jesus was not a 'sperm of the moment' conception. And, I gain much assurance knowing this as but a small component in my utter resolve of Jesus' divine origin.

A significant component of my resolve includes the magnificence of Jesus' genetic healing miracles, to my finding. Jesus made mention of this significance as He was accused of blasphemy in John 10:36 KJV, John 10:37 KJV, John 10:38 KJV. This is a profound revelation to Jesus' divine origin, particularly realizing the telepathic difference between His, and His disciples' methods. I'm not sure if you've been in this arena; but, parents of an afflicted child, through their own DNA, bare a tremendous burden they are the cause of their precious child's suffering: How can God allow this to happen to a blessed child? You may find it interesting, but Noah's son Ham was the father of heritable genetic afflictions (Genesis 9:22 KJV, Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV). So, there's a glimpse to the accuracy Jesus' answer in John 9:1, 2, 3, although there's more to that story.

I see those areas hold a great interest for you. Because of our varied religious interests and theological perspectives,...we obviously have different investments in particular areas and subjects, hence our returns offer different reflections. Perhaps these more freelance dialogues could be had in my 'cosmic cafe' thread? just a thought, unless you still want to hash out the subject of Jesus divinity as germane to this thread.

 

[freelight]

Christ may give you light..............

Christ may give you light..............

Freelight I am not offended, you have been my friend for years now and we have always respected each others views.

kayaker is also one I respect, he always gives reasons for his faith.

I believe what matters most is where the heart is.

:thumb:

Amen bro. You know I've run the gamut from Unitarian and Trinitarian views and the historical research into these and oft-times on a practical level relate things from a more Unitarian view, leaving the more mystical or metaphysical concept of the 'Godhead' or 'Trinity' in its own context of contemplation, since I'm aware of teachings that even transcend the traditional-orthodox Christian concept of the Trinity, such as a 'Paradise Trinity' revealed in the Urantia Papers, so such concepts do not pose much of a problem, since if it hadn't dawned on anyone, I'm very open minded. After all, 'God' is INFINITE. - this means every possible conception or possibility is contained in God and his creation, making an infinite variation of finite creations and possibilities. - this affords endless figures and forms.

I'd like to ask you a question though just to clarify things, since some might be confused whether or not you ascribe or assume any divine nature or quality to Jesus, since it appears you see the Christ (spiritual Son or creation) as being that which is 'divine' which came upon or into the man Jesus, so Jesus is only 'divine' by his merging and 'association' with 'Christ', is this correct? I know you differentiate between Jesus the man and 'Christ' being God's 'Spiritual Son'. Feel free to correct and clarify as needed.

 

[meshak]

Absolutely; isn't it awesome beyond words? Sometimes when you "see" things it's truly like you're standing on holy ground, ya know? Peace

Earth is created by God, so it is holy ground everywhere, when you think about it.

 

[keypurr]

:thumb:



Amen bro. You know I've run the gamut from Unitarian and Trinitarian views and the historical research into these and oft-times on a practical level relate things from a more Unitarian view, leaving the more mystical or metaphysical concept of the 'Godhead' or 'Trinity' in its own context of contemplation, since I'm aware of teachings that even transcend the traditional-orthodox Christian concept of the Trinity, such as a 'Paradise Trinity' revealed in the Urantia Papers, so such concepts do not pose much of a problem, since if it hadn't dawned on anyone, I'm very open minded. After all, 'God' is INFINITE. - this means every possible conception or possibility is contained in God and his creation, making an infinite variation of finite creations and possibilities. - this affords endless figures and forms.



I'd like to ask you a question though just to clarify things, since some might be confused whether or not you ascribe or assume any divine nature or quality to Jesus, since it appears you see the Christ (spiritual Son or creation) as being that which is 'divine' which came upon or into the man Jesus, so Jesus is only 'divine' by his merging and 'association' with 'Christ', is this correct? I know you differentiate between Jesus the man and 'Christ' being God's 'Spiritual Son'. Feel free to correct and clarify as needed.

Yes friend, I see the son mentioned in Heb 1 as the spiritual son. If he is the express image he must be a copy of the Father in all ways. That makes him a spirit and not A pre existent Jesus. Jesus was pure human, he needed to be human to die ad a human, christ came to bring light and understanding to mankind. God as made known through Jesus. Christ spoke through Jesus. It is the Christ in Jesus that is devine. The spirit Christ was the son sent to us and put into Jesus the body prepared for him in Heb 10:5.

 

[aikido7]

Anyone who denies the deity of Jesus is not a Christian. That's why the word "Christ" is the bottom-line reason.

 

[RBBI]

Yeshua was born of corruptible seed; He came forth out of the womb of a corruptible woman. The Son that is the Word, however, came forth out of incorruptible seed of the Father, and was birthed out of the womb of the morning. It is THIS WORD, that was MADE FLESH, ie. corruptible seed, that the invisible might have visibility.

This is why the Word says, this is He that came both by the WATER AND THE BLOOD, and not the water only. The water is corruptible, as in the bag of waters from the natural mother, but the blood is the life of the Word that is SPIRIT, the life is in the blood.

This is also why they made a point of saying that out of His wound came both water and blood, because He both poured out his (Yeshua's) soulish life which is as water, AND the life of the Spirit/blood was poured out as well, and it was THIS BLOOD that was taken to the Father, because carnal flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

The wound is in the area symbolized by the inner court of the priesthood, and the offerings there were both water libations and blood. He provided both, BECAUSE HE WAS BOTH, corruptible man and Spirit man. This is why there were two veils; one represents the corruptible man, the other the Spirit Seed man. The second veil had cherubims WOVEN into it by design.

The same thing we become as we are born FROM ABOVE, and thereby made joint heirs, and adopted sons. We have both a corruptible seed and an incorruptible seed, as did the pattern son. And like Him we have to offer up both water and blood, as the nations of priests that HaShem made us. This is why the Seed Son IS the firstfruits offering and no other offering is acceptable.

All of this is plain to see IF YOU STUDY THE PATTERN GIVEN TO US, but since the branch boasted itself and went it's own way, the traditions of the fathers who had not a CLUE what the pattern was, taught it the way they imagined it, instead of the way it IS.

And the lies have been so ingrained and accepted blindly for so many generations now, it takes an earthquake to shake all things in HEAVEN and earth, to move of the hand of HaShem to rip the veil from the top (the way we think) to the bottom (the way we walk), before we can see Him as He is. Pray for that move of HaShem. Peace