Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

a reply to: TinfoilTP
So was Adam. And all of us, since we are all supposedly his and Eve's descendants.

a reply to: Specimen

Had Jesus ever claimed to be God in the flesh that would have been one of the charges against him at his death sentence. But that never was. He was charged with teaching himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God.

Their interpretation of his words is important. He was speaking to them in a language they understood perfectly. The only time there was a question of this, Jesus himself answered and corrected the mistaken understanding.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Lee Strobel is a snake oil salesman.

You have been 'snake bit' by the original snake oil salesmen AKA the father of all lies.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

Satan ALWAYS perverts God's Word, trying to convince us that God said something different.

He did it to Eve in the garden and also to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Desert.

He still does the same thing today.

Sadly people are gullible and easily fooled.

a reply to: BO XIAN

You can disagree all you like.
The man is a charlatan.
The Case Against Lee Strobel

He’s a propagandist feeding leading questions to sympathetic supporters who are going to give Strobel the predetermined, agreed-upon-in-advance answers that he’s seeking. Maybe that’s useful if you want to “fire up the faithful,” but it isn’t going to convince a skeptic.

The Case Against Faith: A Critical Look at Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith (4th ed., 2006)

Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"

Yet Another Case of Apologetic Dishonesty in Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”: The Historical Evidence for Alexander the Great versus that of Jesus of Nazareth

As a Classics Ph.D. student, however, I really have to say that I find this kind of misinformation about my field to be rather terrible. As much as creationists misrepresent and misinform people about the theory of evolution, historical apologists likewise grossly distort the field of ancient history, using oversimplifications, half-truths, or pure inaccuracies in order to serve their religious agenda and proselytize. Exposing these dishonest apologetics to the public, who deserves better information about these matters, is part of the service I seek to provide as part of my work in academia.

-Matthew Ferguson

Do you need some more?

Have you ever read Karen Armstrong's A History of God: From Abraham to the Present: The 4,000-year Quest for God?

Or Robert Wright's The Evolution of God?

Strobel only talked to other sympathetic apologists. If you get a more well-rounded look at things, he's a poser.

a reply to: Murgatroid

You have been 'snake bit' by the original snake oil salesmen AKA the father of all lies.

What?

I don't buy into propaganda if I can help it. That's why I check the "opposition's" point of view.
The Bible itself is propaganda.

And Lee Strobel carries NO WEIGHT with me.

If you like him, well, that's fine. I don't believe a word he says.

I think of all these scriptures where Jesus refers to the Father that sent him and its black and white to me, that he is referring to a separate person.
A Trinitarian reads the same scripture and automatically inserts in his mind "I the Father sent me"

Reminds me of the picture in black and white of a vase, but if you look at it long enough, change your focus, its not a vase its two identical faces looking at each other...or is it a vase?

But this has been a fantastic thread, and seeing how two different sides of the conversation can use the exact same scriptures and say "don't you see what it says" and the other side say, yes it says exactly what I thought it said.

Just so ya know, my perspective is that the vase in the picture is a vase, the two identical faces looking at each other is an illusion

Just like the Trinity!


X

By the way I've been trying to upload a pic of said vase, I got it uploaded to ATS, but when I click the insert image icon above the reply box, all I get is a black box that I can't do anything with except close ???

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Was he the Son(Sun) of Man, or was he the Son(Sun) of God? Was he the King of Jews, or King of Kings?

Cause back then in those days, people would hate being compared to animals, and the Gods would hate to be compared to humans. I even notice it with the catholic church, that humans can't be consider an animal. While Judaism, it seems humans can't be divine. It just seems to be the mindset in the story really, where humans thought God hated them, then you get Jesus, going, God loves, and won't send you to a burning pit.

Had Jesus ever claimed to be God in the flesh that would have been one of the charges against him at his death sentence.

Him claiming to be the living God, or the Son of God had nothing to do with it, it just gained attention and notoriety.
He didn't put up much of fight when he got crucified, but he did show interest in whipping the merchants who were selling items inside his Dads temple. Which is why he got crucified.

And yes, Im familiar with the Father and Son relationship. If it was a female based religions, it would Mother and Daughter.

All for one, and one for all. Sort of speak.

a reply to: Xcouncil=wisdom

I don't know why it didn't seem to upload it correctly for you. But I will help you some by adding the Rubin Vase.

a reply to: roth1

This will be my only post here but i give one that comes soon my proxy to educate you all on the subject. You will know him by his words.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Strobel only talked to other sympathetic apologists. If you get a more well-rounded look at things, he's a poser.

Calling Strobel a poser and a charlatan and citing someone like Earl Doherty?

Seriously?

"Truth about Doherty, his method, and Strobel. I had problems with Strobel, but this is embarrassing."

"This book should be labeled as fiction, plain and simple."

"Nice Try, But... Earl Doherty fails in his "cross." His rebuttle to Lee Strobel's book is not the slam dunk he portays. Habermas, Blomberg, Craig and the other witnesses can all counter much of what Doherty asserts."

"Doherty does not know what he is talking about."

"Complete Malarky. The whole reason no one has pointed out any specific flaws is because there are so many of them it just boggles the mind where to start."

"Unconvincing, this was a terrible book...boring, bitter, and very unconvincing."

How ironic! "I read "The Case for Christ" and expected to find that it lacks credibility because it endorses the idea of the supernatural -- that is, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I read "Challenging the Verdict" and expected to find that it is credible because it refuses to buy into the possibility of the supernatural. How can anyone believe in the supernatural in these days of science and technology?
However, I found the opposite to be true. The scholars interviewed in "The Case for Christ" offer a sober-minded and reasonable defense of the supernatural, while "Challenging the Verdict" shoots itself in the foot by buying into flights of fancy and outlandish theories to try to account for the evidence for Christianity. Ironically, I walked away believing the Christian scholars. My conclusion is consistent with the one reached by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, who thoroughly analyzed "Challenging the Verdict" and came to this conclusion: "The book is littered with logical fallacies, misstatements of fact, faulty interpretations, pseudo-scholarship, and wholesale ignorance of history, literature, and philosophy." To borrow a word from Jesus: "Amen!"

www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_pr_top_helpful?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOn eStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=byRankDescending

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Welllllll, The Father declared that all power and authority were put under Christ's feet.

I've never found it wise to argue with THE FATHER.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Folks have been throwing rocks at THE TRUTH and the supporters of THE TRUTH for millenia.

Even with Josh McDowell's exhaustive documentation of his extremely thorough research, folks throw rocks at him.

I'm rarely impressed with rock throwers--particularly when there's such extensive evidence in support of THE TRUTH.

I have a fantasy that in due course, The Lord will successfully call you back to Himself.

Until then . . . by all means, carry on. We all gotta do what we think we gotta do.

To 1 subjectively "THE" was aware of how humans perceive and probably didn't wish to carry the GOD label to prevent some from being distracted from the word by gaining misconceptions of he...

It also may have been "necessary" in order for him to go back home to FATHER directly. For if the didn't there may have been repercussions humanity cannot fathom placed upon many here and so knowing he was/is outside of the death energies boundaries of existence. With the LOVE in he, he proved how much to FATHER he cared and loved humanity by letting the ignorant/sick minded attack kill his flesh but not his soul...

Perhaps until humanity is able to behave and better conduct, they are forbidden direct contact with FATHER and it may be better that way until consciously the Spirits/Souls/Internal energies of man mature beyond ignorance & hate.

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA
NAMASTE*******

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Welllllll, The Father declared that all power and authority were put under Christ's feet.

I've never found it wise to argue with THE FATHER.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28
"27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God's authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere."



No need to.

a reply to: Xcouncil=wisdom

A Trinitarian reads the same scripture and automatically inserts in his mind "I the Father sent me"

NOPE.

This Trinitarian reads such Scriptures and says . . . I'll understand it better by and by.

And . . . That to EXHAUSTIVELY understand it is not critical to my eternal relationship with God at this point in time.

That every Scripture about such issues is absolutely true whether I absolutely understand each such verse comprehensively to the nth degree, or not.

I have observed in Scripture and in life that God The Father seems to go to the nth degree putting on Christ every power, authority, lofty title etc. HE CAN . . . which is a lot.

One Heavenly visitor saw
Christ 'bodily' going into and out of 'THE FATHER'S "body" ' . . . visibly merging and "de-merging," as it were . . .

in the throne room . . . a great illustration of their unity and diversity.

Our finiteness has a problem

trying to hold

both THEIR UNITY AS ONE

and their diversity as distinct

in the same hand or same thought or same brain at the same time.

THEY don't seem to have that problem.

I consider it a human comprehension problem due to our finiteness.

I do NOT consider it a cosmological problem . . . nor an existential problem . . . etc.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

I will go this far down such a road . . .

It has often appeared in Scripture and in personal experience narratives . . .

THAT THE FATHER DOES NOT RELATE DIRECTLY to rebellious, stubborn, proud, arrogant, willfully resistive etc. humans--AT LEAST NOT at the initiation of such humans.

There are a few narratives of 'unwashed' individuals being summoned to the Throne Room . . . but their attitudes there are 1,000% submissive and worshipful.

I can't think of any where such bone-marrow-intense and authentic contrarians successfully initiated a visit with THE FATHER . . .

It is as though LOVE, HUMILITY, worshipful submissiveness are PRE-REQUISITES for an audience with THE FATHER.

Of course, Christ didn't cut the Pharisees any slack either.

But it really appears to be the case that THE FATHER will simply not allow such folks anywhere near THE THRONE ROOM.

In the case of such folks, they truly--like the rest of us, though maybe more so--MUST access THE FATHER through THE SON.

so what does Jesus's Angels look like.

When said Human returns and enters the Halls of Truth to Ascend and takes the place as Osiris/Horus(Jesus) on the Throne.
When Osiris/Horus(Jesus)

summoning his minions and flying chariots and steeds.

What will they look like? A wheel within a Wheel? LIke saucer?

Better yet, How can you decern against the Enemy?
what if some being comes baring the resemblance of the typical beautiful human looking angel and claims to be a legionair of Christ?
What if Ashtar makes a grand appearance himself, Claiming to be Christ All mighty?
Would the grown up cherubs Completely replace the Cherubim?

What? Cherub is evolving!...

Congradulations your cherub evolved into, Angel !

Or a Cheribim
en.wikipedia.org...

You know you can't have both right...

I.E you can't believe that both of these species are angels under the same commander.

Old testament *Angels* are much more different than what people are expecting to show up.

The ophanim or ofanim, also Ophde (Hebrew "wheels" אוֹפַנִּים ’ōphannīm; singular אוֺפָן ’ōphān) refer to the wheels seen on Ezekiel's vision of the chariot (Hebrew merkabah) in Ezekiel 1:15-21. These are first construed as angels in one of the Dead Sea scrolls (4Q405), and as a class of celestial beings in late sections of the Book of Enoch (61:10, 71:7) where with the Cherubim and Seraphim they never sleep, but guard the throne of God. These "wheels" have been associated with Daniel 7:9 (mentioned as galgal, traditionally "the wheels of galgallin", in "fiery flame" and "burning fire") of the four, eye-covered wheels (each composed of two nested wheels), that move next to the winged Cherubim, beneath the throne of God. The four wheels move with the Cherubim because the spirit of the Cherubim is in them. These are also referred to as the "many-eyed ones" in the late Second Book of Enoch (20:1, 21:1). The Ophanim are also equated as the "Thrones", associated with the "Wheels", in the vision of Daniel 7:9 (Old Testament). They are the carriers of the throne of God, hence the name. However, they may or may not be the same Thrones (Gr. thronos) mentioned by Paul of Tarsus in Colossians 1:16 (New Testament).

In all truth, Christianity/Islam are horrendous for their cultural shift of spiritual entities.

Islam is no better with labelling Jinn.

Just believing in God or *Jesus* isn't going to cut it.

When your last minutes are counting.
And the *angels* are at your door.


What will YOUR angel look like?

originally posted by: AnuTyr
What will YOUR angel look like?

It WILL depend on the projections they are Mirroring/reflecting 1 thinks...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: nenothtu

It appears that

IF you are to be enlightened on Jesus The Christ being part of the Triune God, that His Holy Spirit will have to do the enlightening.

We can argue about "enlightened", but I won't. It would just become an unnecessary pissing contest about who is more "enlightened", and that detracts from the message, places focus on the self, and is general bad juju. Instead, I'll agree with you - if one is to be "enlightened", then that MUST come from God. As a matter of fact, that is one of the very most basic planks of my own theology, and I really CAN'T disagree with it without betraying my own beliefs.

I don't think I can even scratch the surface of your rather convinced perspective.

Well, to be honest, I've had a very long time of searching and thinking to thrash it out, and it's pretty solid, so I doubt you could scratch it up, either. If you can, you should. I wouldn't want to go through eternity being wrong, so a correction would be in order if it's possible.

When Jesus declared that He and The Father were One, He meant it . . . and it was an emphatically true statement.

So do I, and so it is now - just as it always is, throughout all time.

Finite man may not understand the full breadth and depth of that statement. Nevertheless, it is robustly true.

Oddly enough, finite man is entirely capable of understanding the fullness of that statement - IF he really wants to. He has to really WANT to though, and on top of that the understanding must be given to him, rather than developing it for himself. He may be led to it bit by bit, a little at a time, just as a baby learns to eat, but it NEVER can emerge from within himself. If God doesn't give it to him, he will starve to spiritual death, but he has to do the chewing on his own.

You also don't have to believe 1 John 1:1 on the matter . . . that disbelief in 1 John 1:1 does NOT in the least render it inoperative, however.

Oh, I DO believe I John 1:1 - it's just that the understanding I have been given of it may differ from the one you have. As I said before, John was a mystic, and spoke in a mystic manner - 'twould be an error to try to understand that literally, which is what too many people try to do when they lean on their own understanding.

1John 1:1 says -

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked on, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 1 John 1:1 (American King James Version

I personally don't see how that CAN be taken literally. The literal conclusion to that would be that God's word would have died on the cross, and cease to have existed. Since I don't think that happened, there must be another, not literal, understanding of it, a mystic understanding, in order to retain the truths of the rest of the Bible.

So, obviously, my understanding of it necessarily differs from your if you are taking that passage literally.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Lee Strobel is a snake oil salesman.

You have been 'snake bit' by the original snake oil salesmen AKA the father of all lies.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

Satan ALWAYS perverts God's Word, trying to convince us that God said something different.

He did it to Eve in the garden and also to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Desert.

He still does the same thing today.

Sadly people are gullible and easily fooled.

True enough - we differ on what we believe to be the "snake oil". Is it what the Bible says, or what "the church" under Constantine pushed? That is where the difference lies. Is the right path the wide one that nearly all christians tread, or the narrow one through the narrow gate that few ever even find?

Each must decide for himself what he believe the "snake oil" to be, act accordingly, and live with the results of that...

... forever.