spider:


Jesus never claimed that he was 'God', so why do you?

John14:8-11.
8. Phillip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9. Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long a time, and yet thou hast not known me, Phillip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayeth thou then, Shew us the Father?

10, Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself ; but the Father that dwellrth in me, he doeth the works.

11.
Believeth me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ; or else believe me for the very works' sake."


and....

John14;26.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit,whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Good morning wouldee:



I am really not grasping the concept of one in the same here, and I never have.

The distinctions are profound...



He that hath seen me hath seen the Father does not say that Jesus is or that the Father sent.

EDIT:

Ummmm...ooops! I read 'sent', but it was 'seen' that was written...






The gnosis teaching(s), attributed to Jesus, of 'God' living within Jesus, and all of us, is what I always understood.

Jesus was reported to have said:

For of all men born of woman, the greatest is John, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he...

The kingdom of heaven is within you.


Those statements are quite clear, from my vantage point. How do you interpret the meanings of those and of all of the parables which describe a notion of what(the kingdom of God) is within one?

CS, I had a lengthy response and when you edited, mine dropped out of composition and I was miffed again..

So I'll try again, my friend. I got the time and the tome in tone

As you edited seen to sent, that was where I was headed with next step, ironic?1John 5:8,9.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit : and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood :and these three agree in one."

Notice the difference offered here between what is deemed one and what is agreed in one. The meaning of one is what constitutes such divisiveness even though it is easy to comprehend.

This is veiled in Exodus 3:14, but it is comprehensible as so many things are in the light of Jesus Christ.

AS far as this trinity doctrine of oneness in 'seperate but equal' goes, Paul also wrote these wordsin Phillipians 2:5-7.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus :
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God :
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

This one passage really gets to me....it really did 20 years ago when it hit me....

How would one display God incarnate and not be establishing a mortal kingdom, unless hemade himself of no reputation.

Now then, we have an example of oneness, an example of mortification and selflessness that is purposed not to distract any more than is minimally necessary to convey intent and now onto the third aspect of this oneness that develops the fellowship of an ongoing relationship that supercedes time and space and prepares the way for a legacy and inheritance to be established for future generations to apprehend when their time comes.

This is found in John 16:23-28.
" And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name,he will give it you.
Hitherto have you asked nothing in my name : ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full.
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time comes, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
And that day you shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you;
For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."


"he will give it you." that one always gets to me....it says, give it you and not' give it to you." Just a liittle personal muse that I am sharing there. It is a deeply felt thing to me both ways.

An aside.....
This "oneness" has come to mean " LOVE " to me. This being one thing is LOVE, by definition, in my interpretation.

One must be loved to know how to love, and one must know the love of God before one can love others with a complete and clean love.

Apart from God, our own love is not qualified to be equal with God's love. Experiencing the difference is a prerrequisite for such an apprehension. What I just wrote is subjective to my own experience about love and I am not trying to take you down a rabbit hole or chase distractions. Just sharing my personal thought on that.(oneness)
.....end of aside.


The reference to Kingdom of God being within is illustrated in these verses above.

The Kingdom is expressed towards our inclusion in this.....
Father>Son>Holy Spirit>the willing believer=one. John 15 expresses this by analogy, in that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit while having its rewards also comes with responsibilites incumbent upon its presence in the life of one that enters that Kingdom of God. Those responsibilites and part of our objective, mission and purpose in life as Christians are touched on in this chapter. It is not an idle Kingdom.

Abra said;



Ummm... Hitler was a component of New Age philosophy (see Pantheism) and justified his actions by Darwinism. To call him a "Christian" is a joke. Let's not rewrite history here.

He claimed Christianity and was supported (helped) by the Catholic Church and by American interests .. before the war.

Read about the Hitler project:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

CS,
I am anticipating that more questions will follow. One that is profoundly in my Spirit is in regards to this oneness. I suppose it is just an aside, on my part. Thought it relevant, though impertinent on my part, to share.

There is a grafting into the "Tree of Life" that expresses this best.

The sap (blood) of this tree is LOVE.

1John 14:16...And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Further...

Jon 15:1-9.
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away, he purgeth it: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Now you are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except you abide in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you.
Herein is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; so shall you be my disciples.
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

verse 10-12, for a contextual clarity of the commandment..."If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
This is my commandment,That you love one another, as I have loved you.

More about this grafting in...Romans 11: 13-25.
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if you boast, you bear not the root, but the root you.
You will say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, takeheed lest he also spare not you.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell severity; but towards you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness: otherwise you also shall be cut off.

And they also, if they abide still not in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were gratfed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I would not, bretheren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own cconceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

I can't help it... ... two more and I'll stop this.

28-29.
"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.


excerpts from the source of this "kingdom of God" theme.

He sounds like a pantheist to me.

Spider said:



Thank you. Finally you admit that your beliefs are a matter of faith. You can't prove them. That is all I wanted to hear.

You choose to believe it for your own personal reasons. It has some benefit for you.

So why would you exhaust yourself on this website arguing and defending your beliefs? Do you not get tired of it? (I would) I wonder what it is your are still seeking or what it is you are trying to accomplish. You very likely cannot convince others to see and believe the way you do, so why do you waste your precious time and energy?

You don't have to answer. I just wonder if you even know the answer.

Jeannie,

If you mean by "American interests" the help of the elder Kennedy (a catholic)after he fled the US subsequent to plundering the stock market in a frenzy of market manipulation that led to a frenzy of which he bailed out of and cashed in his chips and fled to Europe, then I guess there is merit to what you are saying here.

But that contradicts how the US got into the fight.

In the elder Keneedy's defence, he later recanted his errors and returned to the US and helped the Federal Government establish the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which is the present governance of laws regulating and overseeing the Stock Market.

As for Hitler, he also used Martin Luther's letters and publications against the Lutheran Church regarding the treatment of the Jewish population in Germany. That whole mess is not Christian , but playing both sides against te middle.

Hitler was quite devious and used the German people's emotions carried over from World War 1 to bring about his tyrannical orgy of hate, death and destruction.

He did more to embarrass the errors within Christianity than to find aid and comfort from the Christian community of his time.

Read "Mein Kampf" which he wrote to learn of Hitler's purposes from his own words.

That is one I have not read. I will if I get the chance, thanks.

yes , he does when you put it like that.

But pantheists strongly disagree, or they would be called Christians then, wouldn't they?

let's be kind, now. I can laugh with you on this without being mean spirited about it.

Pantheists deserve respect for their beliefs. It would be undignified and hateful to not comprehend the pantheist view.

I can understand that view without agreeing with it, since it is a view that is using words to describe God, much like all beliefs that use words to describe God from the point of view of each disciplines' relative adherents.

If you would stop making strawman arguements, then I would stop calling you on it. Why should I allow you to make up beliefs and statements and attribute them to me? Actually address what I post rather than pretending that I have said something else. It's not hard, try it.

The Jews consider "I AM" to be one of God's names. When Jesus said this, the people around him picked up stones to kill him with. This is Jesus saying that it was he who spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

No offense meant, but your understanding of Christianity is superficial at best. I doubt you were ever really deeply involved in the church, you were probably someone who went once a week and expected God to come to you and explain everything to you. PreciousLife and I agree on a great deal about the Old Testament...He's a Jew. You see, the Bible is largely very clear and understandable. Two people, one who believes in Jesus and one who is a Jew can agree on the majority of the Old Testament. The meaning of the majority of the Bible is agreed upon by Jews and Christians. If you had actually studied Christianity, you would know that. Your "uncles" beliefs aside, most Christians who had actually studied Christianity would agree with me. If your "uncles" don't believe that Jesus is God, then I believe that your "uncles" aren't Christians.

So far spider has said all of these things:

"Jesus is the word.
Jesus is God.
God is an object of worship.
Jesus created the Universe.
The Bible is the word of God."

If these statements above are all true the following should be true.

The word created the Universe.
God created the Universe.
An object of worship created the Universe.
God is the word.
The word is an object of worship.
The Bible created the Universe.
The Bible is God.
The Bible is Jesus.
The Bible is an object of worship.

And so spider says to Abra:





I don't think spider has been paying attention..... at all.

I am only guessing here, but it has been my impression that Abra has been deeply involved in Christianity, probably longer than spider has been alive. I could be wrong, but that is my impression.

Look at who’s talking! A self-taught Christian who hasn’t only been Googling verses from the Bible for less than a year to support his own interpretations and agenda.

Just for you won clueless information, I’ve studied and thought about Christianity for the bulk of my life. At least over 40 years. If you think my understanding is superficial you are as naïve as they come.

I’ve gone far deeper than your superficial surface scratches to delve into the real questions that you clearly avoid.

Explain to me, in what way does hell benefit the biblical God.

Explain to me, why the biblical god loves to see people tortured.

Explain to me, that if the biblical God doesn’t love to see people tortured why he designed his ultimate reality to be that way.

And do this all without resorting to the absurd idea that an all-powerful, all-knowing, supreme being who can do anything doesn’t have a choice in the matter.

You can’t justify that notion Spider. It’s beyond absurd.

So your ‘understanding’ of this God is quite inept I’m afraid.

Moreover, if God was always capable of merely forgiving the sins of man at his whim, when did it become necessary for him to have himself physically nailed to a cross to make it possible for him to forgive?

Clearly there’s a gross inconsistency with what the God of the Old Testament was able to do, and what the God of the New Testament is able to do. The God of the New Testament is no longer in full control of things if he had no choice but to have himself nailed to a cross in order to forgive man his sins.

These things make absolutely no sense Spider. None whatsoever.

It’s an oxymoron to claim that with God all things are possible, and then to turn around and make claims of what God has no choice in.

Clearly God is either all-powerful, or he is not. The biblical picture of God is a picture of a God that is clearly not all-powerful. Neither is he all-wise.

And this goes on and on an on,…

Why would an all-knowing, all-compassionate, all-wise intervening God wait until the entire population of planet earth save for about a dozen people were totally corrupt before intervening? Wouldn’t an all-knowing, all-compassionate, all-wise, supernatural being have known enough to intervene early-on before things got so grossly out of control? People often like to use the analogy of God being a parent. This would be like a parent standing by doing nothing whilst their children corrupt each other until things get so far out of control that they are unsalvageable. This would be a picture of a very inept parent.

Clearly not an all-wise entity.

And what about his ongoing war with Satan? God is at war with an angel? And all-powerful God who created this angel in the first place? I think Satan clearly won the war during the great flood. Was God to stubborn to admit defeat that he had to save a handful of humans to play a second rounds of ‘war with the devil’. Clearly the devil already won the game once.

This story makes no sense at all Spider. Yet you claim to ‘understand’ it.

From my point of view you haven’t even begun to think about it deeply enough to even consider the real questions. You’re still at the level of pretending it can be made to make sense.

I firmly believe that Jesus was trying to teach the pantheistic view.

Unfortunately, there are things stated in the gospels that clearly suggest otherwise. But the fallacy there is in thinking that the gospels represent the words of Christ verbatim. They do not. Clearly they were written by men decades after Jesus had died. At best, they are tainted by the misconceptions of the men who wrote about him. Those men wrote from their perspective which was based on the Old Testament, and not pantheism.

Also, I’m a firm believer that the gospels, as recorded in the Bible, were also slanted with intentional demagoguery placed in the these stories wither with deliberate purpose, or at the very least, the demagoguery arose simply from sincere efforts during translations and transcriptions of the original doctrines.

Clearly we see people arguing today over the meanings of these stores, verses and words. To think that the people of old didn’t have the same kinds of personal biases when they translated and transcribed these stores would be utterly naïve.

Even today, we can see teachers of pantheism try to teach the western world these concept, and the people of the western world have an extremely hard time comprehending them. They twist them all around and can’t get this picture of a personified Godhead out of their minds. Well, if Jesus was a pantheist trying to teach the western world the ways of pantheism (and trying to work within their world view) clearly they would think that when he spoke about being the same as the ‘father’ or that the ‘father’ lives with him, that he was claiming to be the God of Abraham because that was there world view!