It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: MamaJ
This is something I have considered as well. If you take it one step further, what if each of us is Him only. He experiences the full gamete so to speak. Like a body having 50 trillion cells, the cells do not live past seven years. Maybe we are the cells of his body. 1 Corinthians 10 seems to suggest this.
I don't think this is the case. If you simply trace it back, then all the sons of God are cells of his body. Once you get back to God, what's the point? God makes it clear that the point is fellowship and for Him to be all in all. The all never ends.
originally posted by: AlephBet
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: AlephBet
Unless Yahweh is Satan...
Bingo!
Fortunately I don't believe "satan" exists... Its nothing more then the materialistic human...
Or "the beast" as you've said in your older threads...
Though IF there is an "evil incarnate"... Yahweh wins the title, to be certain
This is a point that you might consider. God saved Paul, a persecute of Christians. He selected Paul as this messenger of Grace to the Gentiles specifically because of his past. If Yahweh is the Son of God, then we can say the same about His past in relation to His salvation. Viewing this, then we each have quite the opportunity for salvation by comparison.
I have to agree with Sahabi, this is one of the easiest threads you have done. But still has some flaws, basically you are blaming the Son (YHVH) for the fall of Man. And that He came to Earth in human form as Jesus to redeem himself. Your error is in trying to established that GOD made a mistake (I think you are the one mistaken) in the creation. Your second error is trying to convinced people that what you are saying is the truth and nothing else.
I am more of the opinion that this Yahweh character IS the ruler of this world, but is NOT God, and most definitely not the Father Jesus spoke of... After a few thousand years of his nonsense God sent his son to give the real rules, the ones that have always been and have never changed... Yahweh and his minions had Jesus executed in an attempt destroy and or cover up these rules he brought, but Jesus came back to reinforce the fact that the death of the body is not the end of life for us...
originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Rustami
Jesus is not a name of Egyptian origion but of Aramaic name.
Yeshua means Salvation, and he was named Yeshua since he would be the salvation of his people. In Greek, the name was written as Iesous (since it is masculine for a man's name to end in -s in Greek), then eventually Iesus in Latin and then Jesus when the letter "J" was invented.
Jesus doesn't mean anything in Aramaic. YESHUA (not "Jesus") is The Word that means salvation.
John 20 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Jesus is a compound name derived from "Jeh" a contraction of Ehjeh (Exodus 3:14: I AM) joined with "yesha" the Hebrew word salvation (Jeh-yesha); shortened to Jehsha(s) adding the "s" for syntax. Hence Jehsha(s) is transliterated Jesus.
When the letter "I" was followed by a consonant it retained the "I" sounding. This is the rule the KJV translators used in translating Hebrew words and names. It is absolutely a fraud to give the "I" a "Y" sound when a vowel follows the letter "I". Scholars who have done this should acknowledge their error and correct it.
Surrender is the key. He wants us to trust him, and obey when he speaks. Do it and get the joy. He offers a special euphoria intermingled with a type of sensitive pain.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: rockpaperhammock
I believe this is the quote you are thinking about.
Your error is in trying to established that GOD made a mistake (I think you are the one mistaken) in the creation.
First of all, God does not make mistakes, unless we are talking about an imperfect god.
"A god cannot be imperfect, because it will lose any divinity, a god is perfect even if his decisions look bad. Remember that anything that god do has a purpose. So he cannot be wrong, even if it looks like it. Even him understand this. So accepting he was wrong is accepting he is not god".
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: AlephBet
Sorry but your second post that is supposed to be an explanation of the first???? Does not help one bit. I don't think we are even working from the same language or definitions.
I except that I will not understand what you are trying to say. I would need someone that can think like I and you to be able to translate your messages. I am not sure such an individual exists.