Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

reply to post by jmdewey60
Is that the orange or blue paperback that's based on Pritchard's ANET? I've got those around somewhere in a box or trunk.

Who were you directing this too? I think I'm the one who said "Trinity? God who is One is much more than a trinity."

reply to post by Joecroft


Hi Joe, when I say what he does and says is true, what I mean is that what he does and says is in line with what someone like him would do. That he is a true example of someone who understands and follows the way.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60
Is that the orange or blue paperback that's based on Pritchard's ANET? I've got those around somewhere in a box or trunk.

Who were you directing this too? I think I'm the one who said "Trinity? God who is One is much more than a trinity."

I think I was just doing my part to provide book reviews, to partially justify my expenditure on books.
The 'trinity' part of my earlier post is directed towards anyone on this forum who feels compelled to support the doctrine of the trinity, so they realize that it is not unique to Christianity.
The "body" comment was directed more towards you, since you brought it up in your earlier post.
What I was quoting was a used hardback from a series called The Old Testament Library, published by Westminster. The introduction brings up the ANET and says that it was too broad in its inclusion of different texts, and that they were striving to keep their own book as more specialized, to what is directly comparable to the OT.
The text comes from an inscription on a basalt stone, which was described by the scribe, as a copy of a more ancient papyrus text, supposedly for the pupose of supporting the Memphis theology.
I had to look at my book, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, since you were quoting from that disputed book. If someone wanted the technical details about where this book comes from, they can buy the book by Kiley. If you want to find out from the book, why it was written, in the opinion of the author, don't bother, because I can relay his main points in two paragraphs.

. . .Christ. . .precedes the powers in time and, as the All, supersedes them in rank. . .
Also worth noting is the portrayed range of relationships among the envisioned adherents of the heresy, i.e. nil.. . .the author portrays individuals 'taking their stand', making preferential claims (over against others) on the bases of privileged spiritual experience. . . .portrays the life of the church, his particular 'mystery club', as characterized by a striving for decent human relations marked by a mutual deference to one another. . .
. . .who produced Col was in some way familiar with the tradition of Rom 13. . .
. . .nor any other part of Col enjoin the addressees to obey the state. . .

I edited the quote down to the essentials, so as to keep it short, and to keep it within the bounds of 'fair use' for the purpose of a book review.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia

Hi Joe, when I say what he does and says is true, what I mean is that what he does and says is in line with what someone like him would do. That he is a true example of someone who understands and follows the way.

As I said in my last post there are verses in the New testament where the Father is speaking through Jesus and there are verses where Jesus the son is speaking for himself.

I can understand, that you can recognize the Father in Jesus but what are your thoughts, when Jesus is clearly speaking in the bible.



NIV
John 14:21

……………….He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I to will love him and show myself to him.

Who do you think the word “me”, in the above verse, is referring to?



NIV
John 14:23

Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching, My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him”

(In the next sentence after this one, it is the Father speaking)



The above verse is clearly Jesus speaking, I believe this verse is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses the phrase "wewill come to him." Jesus uses the word “we” because he is referring to himself and the Father, coming to dwell within a person. Now if don’t believe that Jesus exists, then how can you view this verse?


Remember, that what Jesus speaks and what the Father speaks, are in agreement with each other. So when Jesus says “we”, in John 14:23, the Father also agrees to it. If you don’t believe Jesus exists however, you are left in a dilemma! regarding this verse and probably, many other verses, as well.

Now assuming you agree that the verse John 14:23 is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit, then when a person receives the Holy Sprit, he will not only know that the Father is real but that the son is real also.


There are so many verses in the bible where Jesus is speaking, so how do you view those verses? You either believe that an anonymous guy lol, wrote the story of Jesus and knows of the Father, or you accept that Jesus is real. Which is easier to believe?

Originally posted by badmedia
…..what I mean is that what he does and says is in line with what someone like him would do

Someone like who?

There are two speakers of truth in the bible, the Father and Jesus!!

The Father represents, the way the truth and the life.

Jesus also represents, the way the truth and the life.



-JC

reply to post by jmdewey60

I had to look at my book, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, since you were quoting from that disputed book. If someone wanted the technical details about where this book comes from, they can buy the book by Kiley. If you want to find out from the book, why it was written, in the opinion of the author, don't bother, because I can relay his main points in two paragraphs.

I quoted Colossians to someone who accepts the whole canon. Personally, I view the schools of Paul as more than one. The Pastorals represent one school. 1Peter represents another in keeping with Romans 13. Ephesians and Colossians represent a third school. Valentinius represents another and Marcion represents still another.

I see it as an over simplification to lump the Pseudepigraphic writings all together and call it proto-orthodoxy as Ehrman does. The biggest proto-orodoxy in my view is Clement the Bishop of Rome who was appointed by Peter. I haven't read 1 Clement recently but as I remember it, it was rather dry compared to the heresies.

The reason I used the Colossians quote the way I did is this: Whereas Sigismundus and others assume an early influence of Mithraism in Saul of Tarsus, I on the other hand detect a Tengeric shamanism influence. In fact he bears the marks of being a shaman himself(set apart from his mother's womb, later called by being struck down).

So, Saul of Tarsus really was a mad man; trying to please a god foreign to him, YHWH, in YHWH's designated territory. Until he was struck down by Jesus, who was to him the World Tree, fulfillment of the World Tree cut down in Daniel 4. Jesus as Branch for Paul wasn't Davidic or Aaronic but rather a Branch from the stump of Nebuchadnezzar, called King of Kings, therefore suitable for Gentiles. The 'mystery' of Ephesians and Colossians is that the Branch is One, Davidic, Aaronic, and Emperial, hence all are One body in the One Jesus; no distinction Judean, Israelite, or Gentile.

The mantle of Paul as shaman of Heaven(Sky, Tengri, God) was passed to the author of Colossians. That's the mantle I was picking up. The Gospel of John also has many elements in common with this particular school of Paul; World Tree, fullness of the Father in Christ, etc. I was writing this up, but posted on the Yahweh as storm god thread instead.

reply to post by pthena


I was probably looking for an excuse to make a book review.
I kind of got the 'picking up the mantle' thing.
This clarifies the concept.
The 'stump of Nebuchadnezzar' is a nice touch.
Thanks for the contribution, and keep up the shamanism, I suppose, if that is what you want to call it. This is maybe a little over my head, but intriguing, none the less.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Judaism is old. The new wine can burst that old wineskin. Tengrism is old also, and can be burst in the same way. Bring on the New Wine, let us all burst together! From the shattered remains perhaps a better man shall emerge. I beleive Jesus is the prototype.

reply to post by Joecroft

The above verse is clearly Jesus speaking, I believe this verse is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses the phrase "wewill come to him." Jesus uses the word “we” because he is referring to himself and the Father, coming to dwell within a person. Now if don’t believe that Jesus exists, then how can you view this verse?

Yes, JC, you get it! The written and recited doctrine of trinity has no life; the Trinity as living reality in the human heart and soul is true as true can be. One says, 'I have the Father', another says 'I have the Son', yet another says 'I have the Spirit'. Is God divided? Not at all. God is One. And we people of God are One in Him.

Originally posted by Joecroft
As I said in my last post there are verses in the New testament where the Father is speaking through Jesus and there are verses where Jesus the son is speaking for himself.

I can understand, that you can recognize the Father in Jesus but what are your thoughts, when Jesus is clearly speaking in the bible.

I don't disagree that Jesus speaks from different perspectives. I'm not sure what the point of your question is I guess. Jesus himself says - why do you call me good? There is none good but the father. All that Jesus speaks of in terms of himself are things which are of the father.

NIV
John 14:21

……………….He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I to will love him and show myself to him.

Who do you think the word “me”, in the above verse, is referring to?

The truth, the way and the life is what it is referring too. And so when you look at 1 John, anyone who does not keep the commandments - the truth is not in them.

John 14:20 is the verse that lead me to the bible and made me take a deeper look at Jesus.

NIV
John 14:23

Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching, My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him”

(In the next sentence after this one, it is the Father speaking)

The above verse is clearly Jesus speaking, I believe this verse is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses the phrase "wewill come to him." Jesus uses the word “we” because he is referring to himself and the Father, coming to dwell within a person. Now if don’t believe that Jesus exists, then how can you view this verse?

Remember, that what Jesus speaks and what the Father speaks, are in agreement with each other. So when Jesus says “we”, in John 14:23, the Father also agrees to it. If you don’t believe Jesus exists however, you are left in a dilemma! regarding this verse and probably, many other verses, as well.

Now assuming you agree that the verse John 14:23 is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit, then when a person receives the Holy Sprit, he will not only know that the Father is real but that the son is real also.

You quoted John 14:23, but in the next sentence it's not the father speaking. In John 14:24 he is talking about those who do not keep the sayings - and him is referring to Jesus the person. This should also answer your question.

John 14

24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Now then. Lets look at something in John 14 that comes before this.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Ok, in the manner you are treating Jesus in these verses, it means that I can ask Jesus to kill my brother and it will be done. After all, I am asking in the "name of Jesus" correct?

But yet it won't be done - why not? Because in his name means in line with the truth, the way and the life. And so to ask Jesus to kill your brother is not in line with that, so it will not be done. But if you are to ask for things towards those things - then it will be done.

There are so many verses in the bible where Jesus is speaking, so how do you view those verses? You either believe that an anonymous guy lol, wrote the story of Jesus and knows of the Father, or you accept that Jesus is real. Which is easier to believe?

Have you not understood anything I've said?

I do not need belief, I know the father. Those things are not important to me. It does not matter to me either way, thus why do I need to believe anything? What is important is what is being expressed.

The father did not tell me to go worship Jesus. The father did not tell me to go follow Jesus. The father did not tell me to go join a religion. In fact, I was told the opposite of that in terms of how Christians treat it. I was told to BE that, to BE that which follows the commandments, to BE that which keeps the commandments and so forth.

Jesus is an example of what I was told to be. In terms of this thread - Paul is an example of what I was told NOT to be - specifically. I am not a Christian and I think Christianity is the anti-Christ religion. I thought I've been pretty clear about that. Christianity = Paul.

Someone like who?

There are two speakers of truth in the bible, the Father and Jesus!!

The Father represents, the way the truth and the life.

Jesus also represents, the way the truth and the life.

Someone like me.



[edit on 2/11/2010 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia



Hi badmedia

Like yourself I wasn’t bought up in a religious family but when I first started to go to a church over the past three years and people started to quote Paul, I couldn’t understand why. Alarm bells started to go off in my mind and of course they would explain the story of Paul etc The more I thought about it, the more I began to believe that the Bible should be about Jesus teachings and not about a good Christians thoughts and ideas, especially when it’s starts to assume a religion of it’s own, based on things that Jesus never even said!. Imagine if we took all the good Christians, down through the centuries and added their personal writings to the bible, then where would we be?

IMO the bible has to be about the Father and Jesus and the rest should be kept in it’s proper place i.e. in historical records and not in religion.

Originally posted by badmedia
The truth, the way and the life is what it is referring too. And so when you look at 1 John, anyone who does not keep the commandments - the truth is not in them.

Yes, it is referring to the way the truth and the life but Jesus was a person who represented those things but your just not sure he existed.

Originally posted by badmedia
You quoted John 14:23, but in the next sentence it's not the father speaking. In John 14:24 he is talking about those who do not keep the sayings - and him is referring to Jesus the person. This should also answer your question.

Ok my point was that when Jesus speaks sometimes it’s the son speaking and sometimes the Father speaking, maybe I picked the wrong verse to show that, but you still haven’t answered my question.

So here it is again…

“I believe the verse John 14:23 is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses the phrase "we will come to him." Jesus uses the word “we” because he is referring to himself and the Father, coming to dwell within a person. Now if don’t believe that Jesus exists, then how can you view this verse?”

I mean regardless of who you think is speaking here, it is talking about two spiritual beings, coming to dwell within a person.

The problem for me, is that on one hand, your saying you know the Father and believe in what is being expressed and you say you believe what he says and does to be true. But in the verse John 14:23 he is saying and expressing that "we will come to him." Which is clearly referring to both the Father and Jesus but somehow you don’t, or are not sure, that Jesus exists. How can that be, bearing in mind you believe what is being expressed by the Father?

Originally posted by badmedia
Ok, in the manner you are treating Jesus in these verses, it means that I can ask Jesus to kill my brother and it will be done. After all, I am asking in the "name of Jesus" correct?

No I am not representing Jesus in a manner, in which you can pray for anything in his name and it will be done. I believe that Jesus represents the way the truth and the life, just like you do but I also believe that Jesus actually existed.

The doctrines have it wrong, you don’t need to know the actual name of Jesus because like Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruits”.
When people pray for something in Jesus name, it has to be for something that Jesus stands for and represents, whether they say his name or not, otherwise they are going against what Jesus stood for, even if they use his name. This doesn’t however necessarily mean though, that Jesus the person doesn’t exist.

Imagine that I died and you decided to honor me, by doing a thread lol in my name. Crazy I know, but try to bear with me here…

Now by doing something in my name, I would like to think, that you did something, that I stood for or liked. Like for example a thread dedicated to “Time travel”, then you would be doing it in my name, by doing something that I stood for. If on the other hand you did a thread about “baking” lol and said, “this is for Joe”, then you would be using my name but you wouldn’t really be doing it in my name, because that is not what I stood for. My point is, that no matter how you used my name, whether rightly or wrongly or even deceptively, it doesn’t mean that I didn’t exist!

Originally posted by badmedia
But yet it won't be done - why not? Because in his name means in line with the truth, the way and the life. And so to ask Jesus to kill your brother is not in line with that, so it will not be done. But if you are to ask for things towards those things - then it will be done.

Yes, I am in absolute agreement with you on this but once again, this does not necessarily mean, that Jesus doesn’t exist as a person. People may not follow what Jesus stood for and represents etc but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

Originally posted by badmedia
I do not need belief, I know the father. Those things are not important to me. It does not matter to me either way, thus why do I need to believe anything? What is important is what is being expressed.

Yes, but when what is being expressed, involves the spiritual entity of Jesus coming to dwell within someone, along with the Father, where do you go from there, in terms of how you see Jesus, if you don’t believe he existed?

Originally posted by badmedia
The father did not tell me to go worship Jesus. The father did not tell me to go follow Jesus. The father did not tell me to go join a religion.

Yes this is absolutely correct, because Jesus wants us to find the Father and not worship him as an idol. Jesus constantly tells us the Father is greater than him and that he is only a servant doing his Fathers work. Religion on the other hand is to some extent, worshiping the idol.

Originally posted by badmedia
In fact, I was told the opposite of that in terms of how Christians treat it. I was told to BE that, to BE that which follows the commandments, to BE that which keeps the commandments and so forth.

Yes, I agree with you, Jesus and the Father want us to become more Christ like and follow the commandments. This is why the Holy Spirit was given to help people keep the commandments. I said in another post, on this thread, about how Jesus had to go, before the Holy Spirit would come and the reason why this is so, is connected to the verse in John 14:23, because Jesus and the Father both come to dwell within a person, when you receive the Holy spirit.

Originally posted by badmedia
Jesus is an example of what I was told to be. In terms of this thread - Paul is an example of what I was told NOT to be - specifically. I am not a Christian and I think Christianity is the anti-Christ religion. I thought I've been pretty clear about that. Christianity = Paul.

Yes I agree, Paul talks with too much authority about topics that Jesus never even mentioned. IMO Paul’s writings should only be used for historic purposes only.

Like Jesus said, “You cannot worship two masters, you will either love one and hate the other”…


…anyway, I feel like I’m pushing you a bit too hard, to believe that Jesus is real and it’s not really up to me to do this. Like you said to me, it is up to the Father/God to show people and you shouldn’t really trust men, even if their intentions are sincere. Maybe the Father has a plan or timing for this to be revealed to you, in some way, I don’t really know for sure.

I do believe however, that you can keep your way of looking at things and still believe, that Jesus was and is a real person.


- JC


[edit on 11-2-2010 by Joecroft]

Originally posted by Joecroft
Yes, it is referring to the way the truth and the life but Jesus was a person who represented those things but your just not sure he existed.

I skipped over some, I know we are in agreement on many things from past conversations.

But it's more than just not being sure he existed. I'm saying that it's not important to me and doesn't matter either way. To me, it's kind of along the lines of worry about what size tires the car that is about to hit you has on it.

The way it was shown to me is the way Jesus speaks about it. They(Jesus) are nothing more than vessels used by the father for a purpose etc. That it is not them which is important, but what they give etc. So it's just not something that matters or is an issue to me.

Ok my point was that when Jesus speaks sometimes it’s the son speaking and sometimes the Father speaking, maybe I picked the wrong verse to show that, but you still haven’t answered my question.

This I agree with, he does do this. I understand that.

So here it is again…

“I believe the verse John 14:23 is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses the phrase "we will come to him." Jesus uses the word “we” because he is referring to himself and the Father, coming to dwell within a person. Now if don’t believe that Jesus exists, then how can you view this verse?”

I mean regardless of who you think is speaking here, it is talking about two spiritual beings, coming to dwell within a person.

The problem for me, is that on one hand, your saying you know the Father and believe in what is being expressed and you say you believe what he says and does to be true. But in the verse John 14:23 he is saying and expressing that "we will come to him." Which is clearly referring to both the Father and Jesus but somehow you don’t, or are not sure, that Jesus exists. How can that be, bearing in mind you believe what is being expressed by the Father?

Please understand that when it comes to John 14 I am speaking of my experience. John 14 is the chapter of the bible that describes my experience and is what blew me away. As such, knowing which is which is down to which fits my experience correctly.

There are 2 experiences described in John 14. 1 is the way of those who keep the commandments and sayings of Jesus. That is not the way I experienced it. I experienced the 2nd way, which is those who do not love Jesus, and as such they hear the father and then they are taught. So, because of this - I learned these things before hearing the sayings.

1 of those beings is the father for sure. John 14:20. Because that was the basis of all that followed was meeting and knowing the father within.

In my vision, I seen a being of light basically. My consciousness was pulled into a white room, and a being that looked like it was the sun was in front of me. Very bright, but it did not hurt my eyes because it wasn't physical and it wasn't my eyes I was seeing with. I knew instantly and upon meeting this that it was the father.

Now, this is where it gets tricky. The being of light was the father, but yet it is in no way "all" of the father. As such is impossible for someone to see. I was asked a single question, I answered and that was the end of the vision. This was followed by a period of time that started instantly and immediately with this where I learned lots of things and came to the understanding overall that I speak of today(although I did not use the same terms/labels). It is entirely possible that as the being of light could not be the father in full, that is was "Jesus". Yet such labels and things were not a part of it, so I can't say that is the case.

The period of time of learning is what I see described as the holy spirit, and so that is the label I use for it. This also came and was "in me".

What is tricky is that these things weren't really separate for me. I didn't think of it as separate things in experience. Just me and the father is all that is "separate" and even that is illusion for experience. It's all really the same thing. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion in the expression?

Even as I experienced from the 2nd way, I now experience things as in the first way after having learned. In that I love and keep the commandments now, love the father and so forth. But still no being named Jesus involved. Only in the manner of Jesus being the truth, the way and life is "Jesus" in it. The only thing of flesh and such in the equation was me. If I ever meet a being named "Jesus", I will certainly let you know.

No I am not representing Jesus in a manner, in which you can pray for anything in his name and it will be done. I believe that Jesus represents the way the truth and the life, just like you do but I also believe that Jesus actually existed.

Well, it doesn't bother me at all that you believe he existed and such. I don't draw any issue with it. That is fine with me, hope it's true because a universe without such is depressing anyway. Just don't think it's all that important or a point of focus is all.

The doctrines have it wrong, you don’t need to know the actual name of Jesus because like Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruits”.
When people pray for something in Jesus name, it has to be for something that Jesus stands for and represents, whether they say his name or not, otherwise they are going against what Jesus stood for, even if they use his name. This doesn’t however necessarily mean though, that Jesus the person doesn’t exist.

Imagine that I died and you decided to honor me, by doing a thread lol in my name. Crazy I know, but try to bear with me here…

Now by doing something in my name, I would like to think, that you did something, that I stood for or liked. Like for example a thread dedicated to “Time travel”, then you would be doing it in my name, by doing something that I stood for. If on the other hand you did a thread about “baking” lol and said, “this is for Joe”, then you would be using my name but you wouldn’t really be doing it in my name, because that is not what I stood for. My point is, that no matter how you used my name, whether rightly or wrongly or even deceptively, it doesn’t mean that I didn’t exist!

All well and good/agreeable. Such is good understanding. But here is my question.

Is the thread still in your name even if you didn't die and such and was just a thread today on it's own?

Yes, but when what is being expressed, involves the spiritual entity of Jesus coming to dwell within someone, along with the Father, so where do you go from there, in terms of how you see Jesus, if you don’t believe he existed?

It is only Jesus in the flesh which is in question, not the rest. Even that I say I have no trouble in "believing", but I have no problem noting it is just a belief and so forth. Where as it seems Christians have a fear in this, and a fear that if it was not real, the rest is no longer real/valid. That is not true or the case at all. Which is in itself only because they think of the blood sacrifice and such etc. The importance of Jesus being real or not is mostly for those types of people, of which I am not. It does not matter to me either way.

Jesus makes this point for me in John 14 as well. Where he says believe he is in teh father, or else believe for the very works sake. Meaning, belief in the commandments and keepign the way is more important, and as such all should do it.

I'd be shocked to find out that there were not many like Jesus who lived. But you are asking me to testify to specific person and that I can not do as I do not know. I do so because it's honest and I think honesty is important. If I am not honest in this, then I would be bearing false witness. It is not a choice for me.

…anyway, I feel like I’m pushing you a bit too hard, to believe that Jesus is real and it’s not really up to me to do this. Like you said to me, it is up to the Father/God to show people and you shouldn’t really trust men, even if their intentions are sincere. Maybe the Father has a plan or timing for this to be revealed to you, in some way, I don’t really know for sure.

I do believe however, that you can keep your way of looking at things and still believe, that Jesus was and is a real person.

I shortened up agreements for space. Again, I don't have a problem with people believing in Jesus. The problem I have arises when people think that is all that matters. Or that if it turns out to be false, that all is lost and none of it mattered etc. It's when people put that above the rest that I have a problem with. It's when people focus only on that instead of that which is important and so forth that I have issues with. If a person keeps all that is important, and also believes in Jesus - no problem or issue at all.

reply to post by oliveoil


Saul was one of the greatest apostle. The vison you describe is spot on.
Now people who alwys want to say Jesus was false god, will find numerous reasons to do so.
But for a true Christian, nothing the world says or does , will change the fact that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.

Cheers

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
But it's more than just not being sure he existed. I'm saying that it's not important to me and doesn't matter either way.

I don’t believe that is true. I think what you mean, is that you are not happy, that people are just worshipping the name of the person Jesus, instead of doing and following the things that he stands for.

Originally posted by badmedia
The way it was shown to me is the way Jesus speaks about it. They(Jesus) are nothing more than vessels used by the father for a purpose etc. That it is not them which is important, but what they give etc. So it's just not something that matters or is an issue to me.

So I’m guessing you don’t buy into the following, “Jesus is the “word” in the Old Testament”, “Jesus is described as the first born of all creation”, “Through Jesus and the Father, all other things were created”, “Jesus coming, was prophesized in the Old Testament”???...there is a bigger list lol

Yes, there are vessels as you say, who work for God but Jesus is described in the various parts of the bible, as no ordinary vessel. Jesus isn’t just a person in the flesh, he is a spiritual being that was created by Father/God, before he came in the flesh.

Have you discounted all the interconnected verses in the Old and New Testament’s, regarding Jesus existence?

Originally posted by badmedia
1 of those beings is the father for sure. John 14:20. Because that was the basis of all that followed was meeting and knowing the father within.

Bearing in mind your not sure of Jesus existence, consider the following.

NIV
John 14:20

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

You know that this verse is talking about knowing the Father is within, but yet this verse is also saying, that Jesus is within you as well.

NIV
John 14:23

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

And in this verse as I have already pointed out, he uses the word “we”, which means Jesus and the Father combined.

If you believe that what Jesus speaks is in alignment with the Father and vice versa, then you have to also believe what is being represented in these verses.

If you think about it, why would the Father allow Jesus to use the words “we”, in John 14:23, and why would he say that I and the Father are within you?

I mean, why not just say in John 14:23, that the “Father will come to him” and in John 14:20, why doesn’t he just say, “that the Father is within you”

Why do you think Jesus is bringing himself into the equation?

Or

Why do think the Father, is allowing/bringing Jesus in the equation, when saying those things?

Originally posted by badmedia
What is tricky is that these things weren't really separate for me. I didn't think of it as separate things in experience. Just me and the father is all that is "separate" and even that is illusion for experience. It's all really the same thing. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion in the expression?

Its seems to me that because you were not aware at the time of biblical terminology and labels of that nature, that you kind of filled in the gaps, so to speak, to help with your understanding.

Originally posted by badmedia
In my vision, I seen a being of light basically. My consciousness was pulled into a white room, and a being that looked like it was the sun was in front of me.

I haven’t quoted your whole experience, just to save space but thanks for sharing it here, it was awesome. I have in my own life so far met quite a few people who have had an encounter with Jesus in one form or another.

I’m not sure if your aware of the this verse…

NIV
Mathew 17: 1-2

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

Originally posted by badmedia
If I ever meet a being named "Jesus", I will certainly let you know.

It appears to me, like you have already met Jesus.

Originally posted by badmedia
All well and good/agreeable. Such is good understanding. But here is my question.

Is the thread still in your name even if you didn't die and such and was just a thread today on it's own?

I believe Jesus is a spiritual being before he came in the flesh. When his body died and was resurrected, he still had a spiritual body, which is/was alive.

But to answer your question, yes it would still be in my name if, I were alive or dead, as long as it was something that I stood for and represented. To me a name means nothing, a person is really defined by there essence, character, what they stand for etc, a persons name is really just a label to identify someone.

Originally posted by badmedia
But you are asking me to testify to specific person and that I can not do as I do not know. I do so because it's honest and I think honesty is important. If I am not honest in this, then I would be bearing false witness. It is not a choice for me.

Kind of reminds me of this…

Martin Luther

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other May God help me. Amen.

- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
I don’t believe that is true. I think what you mean, is that you are not happy, that people are just worshipping the name of the person Jesus, instead of doing and following the things that he stands for.

Well it is true. Like I say, you can prove or disprove the existance of Jesus in the flesh and it's not going to matter to me personally either way. I won't care and nothing will change for me. It doesn't affect me in either direction and I would be no different after.

So I’m guessing you don’t buy into the following, “Jesus is the “word” in the Old Testament”, “Jesus is described as the first born of all creation”, “Through Jesus and the Father, all other things were created”, “Jesus coming, was prophesized in the Old Testament”???...there is a bigger list lol

Yes, there are vessels as you say, who work for God but Jesus is described in the various parts of the bible, as no ordinary vessel. Jesus isn’t just a person in the flesh, he is a spiritual being that was created by Father/God, before he came in the flesh.

Have you discounted all the interconnected verses in the Old and New Testament’s, regarding Jesus existence?

Jesus being the word in the flesh is said because of what he did and him being a true example of the word(in the flesh). This would be true of anyone who understood and followed things in the manner Jesus did. Where as in the Christian context, it is seen as "only Jesus". Which is the equivliant of saying only 1+1=2 is a true math statement and all others are by default false.

I have in fact discounted many of the connections Christians claim between the OT and the NT. I find most of them flimsy at best, and the idea itself to be completely backwards. Meaning, Jesus points towards the OT rather than the OT pointing towards him as you are saying here.

I see the true word of god as being like the understanding of math, and the word in the flesh as being just a true expression of that understanding. So, in terms of math, the word in the flesh, or the understanding of the math in expression is 1+1=2. Yet, the understanding itself is still greater than the single expression. This is again how the father taught me to look at things, look at the equations/actions/fruits rather than the labels/idols etc.

Bearing in mind your not sure of Jesus existence, consider the following.

NIV
John 14:20

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

You know that this verse is talking about knowing the Father is within, but yet this verse is also saying, that Jesus is within you as well.

This verse is talking about the father being within all and that when you meet the father this you will understand. When I expressed this in my own raw words directly after my experience, I just said - I am god and I am arguing with myself. Meaning, I seen the father within and also knew that it was within others as well, that in the end there is only 1 true observer etc. Thus, if a being name Jesus did exist, then by default the statement above would be true. He is expressing something more there. Like I said, that is the verse that opened up the bible for me.

And in this verse as I have already pointed out, he uses the word “we”, which means Jesus and the Father combined.

If you believe that what Jesus speaks is in alignment with the Father and vice versa, then you have to also believe what is being represented in these verses.

If you think about it, why would the Father allow Jesus to use the words “we”, in John 14:23, and why would he say that I and the Father are within you?

I mean, why not just say in John 14:23, that the “Father will come to him” and in John 14:20, why doesn’t he just say, “that the Father is within you”

Why do you think Jesus is bringing himself into the equation?

Or

Why do think the Father, is allowing/bringing Jesus in the equation, when saying those things?

You have to understand that you are the part of Jesus in these things. Not that you are Jesus directly etc, but that you are like Jesus in what is being said here. Let us not forget that he tells you to call god father as well. That all are children of the most high and so forth. Everything Jesus says of himself in terms of the flesh is true of me/you also. It's up to us to become that true expression as he was. Just like he says earlier in John 14 - and greater things than this will he do. How could such be possible any other way?

Its seems to me that because you were not aware at the time of biblical terminology and labels of that nature, that you kind of filled in the gaps, so to speak, to help with your understanding.

Not exactly. I don't gain understanding from the bible, only the father. The bible and these labels and such are just me trying to find the best way to express these understandings too people. Common labels and terminology among people helps with this. As such, I quote/study the bible/scripture for the benefit of others. Otherwise it would be very much like if I was speaking a foreign language. We agree to call a tree a "tree" in our language for this reason, and so I do the same with the bible/scripture.

I haven’t quoted your whole experience, just to save space but thanks for sharing it here, it was awesome. I have in my own life so far met quite a few people who have had an encounter with Jesus in one form or another.

I’m not sure if your aware of the this verse…

NIV
Mathew 17: 1-2

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

Originally posted by badmedia
If I ever meet a being named "Jesus", I will certainly let you know.

It appears to me, like you have already met Jesus.

That which I saw wasn't wearing clothes and had no real features. If you took a silhouette of a man and filled it with the sun, that is what I saw. The beings of light stuff is another one of those things that shocked me about the bible - didn't know at the time any of that was in there.

I am open for that which I saw and so forth as being Jesus. I just couldn't say one way or another because everything in my experience itself was beyond those kinds of labels.

The only time I have ever thought "Jesus" was during a dream. In which I only remembered the end of it. I was leaving this place, and a bunch of people were waving goodbye to me. As I woke up, I felt "Jesus" was one of them, but I never saw him directly or anything, and don't remember any of the dream itself except for that end part. It wasn't an experience that was on the same level as the other, and so I can't say it was more than just a dream.

But I guess a big reason why I don't worry about such a thing is because I already know I don't have to be here, and I know where I am going etc. As all this started, the first/only question I was asked is if I wanted it to end, and that it was my choice to be here.

I believe Jesus is a spiritual being before he came in the flesh. When his body died and was resurrected, he still had a spiritual body, which is/was alive.

I have no problem with this and hope it's true. I just can't testify it is all, only that the things he represents in the story are.

But to answer your question, yes it would still be in my name if, I were alive or dead, as long as it was something that I stood for and represented. To me a name means nothing, a person is really defined by there essence, character, what they stand for etc, a persons name is really just a label to identify someone.

Exactly, thus it goes beyond just you, you in the flesh and so forth.

Kind of reminds me of this…

Martin Luther

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other May God help me. Amen.

My biggest fear is to mislead a person. I would rather die than to even accidentally mislead a person. I figure my best chances to succeed in this is to make sure I only speak from things I am sure of and know/understand.

As the father told me - this world isn't in need of another "the truth as according to badmedia".

reply to post by Joecroft

NIV John 14:23
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching, My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him”

(In the next sentence after this one, it is the Father speaking)

The above verse is clearly Jesus speaking, I believe this verse is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses the phrase "wewill come to him." Jesus uses the word “we” because he is referring to himself and the Father, coming to dwell within a person. Now if don’t believe that Jesus exists, then how can you view this verse?

Remember, that what Jesus speaks and what the Father speaks, are in agreement with each other. So when Jesus says “we”, in John 14:23, the Father also agrees to it. If you don’t believe Jesus exists however, you are left in a dilemma! regarding this verse and probably, many other verses, as well.

Now assuming you agree that the verse John 14:23 is referring to receiving the Holy Spirit, then when a person receives the Holy Sprit, he will not only know that the Father is real but that the son is real also.

There are so many verses in the bible where Jesus is speaking, so how do you view those verses? You either believe that an anonymous guy lol, wrote the story of Jesus and knows of the Father, or you accept that Jesus is real. Which is easier to believe?

I found something I am going to quote, from New Currents Through John page 46, that I think does a good job of pointing out what is important to see in this verse.

But while there is no hell in the Fourth Gospel, there is judgment. Let me highlight two verses in John that specifically contrast the fates of believers and nonbelievers. John 3:36 contrasts “seeing eternal life” with “having the wrath of God remain upon him,” and 5:29 contrasts doing good, which leads to resurrection of life, with doing bad, which leads to resurrection of judgment. The believer sees eternal life; the nonbeliever has the wrath of God remaining (menō) upon him. This menō language is, of course, not accidental; it is special Johannine vocabulary, and the Fourth evangelist plays the word here. In the Fourth Gospel, the ultimate reward granted to the believer is to have the Father and Jesus abide, remain, dwell (menō) with that believer (see 14:23, eleusometha Kai monēn par’ autō poiēsometha). This is nothing less than eternal life. The nonbeliever, by contrast, has only the wrath of God; God’s self does not abide (menō) with him or her.

ἐλευσόμεθα is the word in this verse that is translated, we will come. Transliterated, eleusometha. The lexicon has the word origin being, something that sounds like, "variations on a primary word", which seems to me to be almost not a word at all, really, but a conglomeration of different words which have the same basic idea behind it (a very primary concept of doing something, but never in the sense of a completed action).
In practical terms, this odd little word in John, which seems to be unique to this one verse, is really nothing more that a prefix added to a suffix, as if it is a made-up word, to serve a specific purpose. Now, the suffix can be discerned, and scripture4all.org has the word as WE-SHALL-BE-COMING, and designated, vi Fut midD 1 Pl. Middlebury.edu has a breakdown of Greek verb inflections, one being, Future Mediopassive. Sing: -somai Plur: -sometha. First Person.
We start with the word, eleusometha, and account for most of the word with a suffix for a verbal inflection, -sometha. What we are left with, to be accounted for, is, eleu. A matriarchal cult?
We can look at the word, eleutheros, which is in the New Testament, translated as, freeman. If we take the word, minus the eleu-, we get theros, a male god of harvest. So the word is the combining of a female goddess, and a male god, both of very ancient origin, probably older than any of the Athenian pantheon.
So the verse here, attributed to Jesus, is saying, if you believe in me, and do what I say, I, and my father will do something, concerning you, of a particular sort of nature, something practiced as a mystery, but of an exclusive nature, meaning, something not just anyone is allowed to participate in.
Pagan? Sounds like it.


[edit on 12-2-2010 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
But it's more than just not being sure he existed. I'm saying that it's not important to me and doesn't matter either way.

Like I said in my previous post, I don’t believe that to be true, I think you do care if Jesus existed or not…or at least, I think you do!

Originally posted by badmedia
Well it is true. Like I say, you can prove or disprove the existance of Jesus in the flesh and it's not going to matter to me personally either way. I won't care and nothing will change for me. It doesn't affect me in either direction and I would be no different after.

Originally posted by badmedia
Well, it doesn't bother me at all that you believe he existed and such. I don't draw any issue with it. That is fine with me, hope it's true because a universe without such is depressing anyway. Just don't think it's all that important or a point of focus is all.

Originally posted by badmedia
I have no problem with this and hope it's true. I just can't testify it is all, only that the things he represents in the story are.

You can’t say, on one hand, you hope Jesus existence is true and on the other, tell me, it doesn’t matter to you personally either way, if someone could prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. That is a contradiction!

Originally posted by badmedia
I have in fact discounted many of the connections Christians claim between the OT and the NT. I find most of them flimsy at best, and the idea itself to be completely backwards. Meaning, Jesus points towards the OT rather than the OT pointing towards him as you are saying here.

Really, well that’s quite a big topic and is getting off topic on this thread. Maybe it could be discussed on another thread entitled.

“Was the coming of Jesus, prophesied in the Old Testament?”

Originally posted by Joecroft
NIV
John 14:20

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Originally posted by badmedia
………Thus, if a being name Jesus did exist, then by default the statement above would be true.

So what happens to the above statement, if Jesus didn’t exist?


The whole point of me bringing up that verse, was to try and get you to maybe believe, that Jesus does exist. There are a lot of other verses I could have brought up.

Originally posted by badmedia
You have to understand that you are the part of Jesus in these things. Not that you are Jesus directly etc, but that you are like Jesus in what is being said here. Let us not forget that he tells you to call god father as well. That all are children of the most high and so forth. Everything Jesus says of himself in terms of the flesh is true of me/you also. It's up to us to become that true expression as he was. Just like he says earlier in John 14 - and greater things than this will he do. How could such be possible any other way?

Jesus is the first thing that the Father/God created according to the bible… Jesus is unique. Do you know of anyone else, who is or has been, a true expression of the way, the truth and the life?

If what you are saying above is true, then why would Jesus be included in those verses. Why does Jesus say “we will make our home in you”. Why not leave Jesus out of the picture entirely and just say, “The Father will make his home in you?” because if the later was being said, then I could agree with your point of view.

Originally posted by badmedia
That which I saw wasn't wearing clothes and had no real features. If you took a silhouette of a man and filled it with the sun, that is what I saw. The beings of light stuff is another one of those things that shocked me about the bible - didn't know at the time any of that was in there.

I am open for that which I saw and so forth as being Jesus. I just couldn't say one way or another because everything in my experience itself was beyond those kinds of labels.

It does say somewhere in the bible, but I’m not sure where, that no one can look upon the Father/God and live. So it seems more likely that you either saw an angel or Jesus, partly because Jesus has been described in the bible, as one shinning like the sun.


Man I have so many questions for you, I don’t know where to begin…


And I was going to ask you your opinion on “The empty tomb” lol (j/k)


PS – sorry, I couldn’t resist that joke


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
Like I said in my previous post, I don’t believe that to be true, I think you do care if Jesus existed or not…or at least, I think you do!

Really doesn't matter to me, and doesn't affect me in any direction.

You can’t say, on one hand, you hope Jesus existence is true and on the other, tell me, it doesn’t matter to you personally either way, if someone could prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. That is a contradiction!

Why would I hope for anything else than it to be true? What reason would I have to hope that it wasn't true? I have no reason not to hope for such things.

When I talk about that of Jesus that I know is true, I am more speaking of an archetype. And that the archetype itself is that of the father(does the will of the father) and the example of Jesus in the bible fits the bill perfectly. All that kind of stuff I know is true. Perhaps that makes more sense?

Supposed to be normal.

really, well that’s quite a big topic and is getting off topic on this thread. Maybe it could be discussed on another thread entitled.

“Was the coming of Jesus, prophesied in the Old Testament?”

Yes, people take the "word in the flesh" part and then use it as a means of making everything in the OT in reference to the "word" as being directly about Jesus. However, what is actually the case is that it's the other way around, and Jesus is referencing the word himself. Because like he says - he keeps the commandments of the father. Thus, he keeps that word and lives it - which is where the word in flesh comes from to start with. Word in the flesh means a living expression. Word = expression. Because as I say, the true word of god is just pure understanding and that beyond the expression itself.

I also do not buy/think that Mary is a virgin, and that part there is exactly from people doing that. I think because they do not understand the 2 births. The father is the virgin of which all souls are born, thus born of a virgin and something all must experience(you've already been born of spirit as you have a soul, the 2nd birth is when you come to realize and understand it and then you know John 14 etc). Until that point, people see themselves only as flesh, like atheists do. But after you are born of spirit - then you know that is what you really are, and thus also your true father. That seems to confuse many people, but like Jesus says - marvel not because it's not what/how they think it means.

So what happens to the above statement, if Jesus didn’t exist?

The whole point of me bringing up that verse, was to try and get you to maybe believe, that Jesus does exist. There are a lot of other verses I could have brought up.

The statement is still true. That verse is speaking of the moment and specific day someone is born of spirit. That is why it starts out - on that day. On that day you will know. On the day you are born of spirit, you will know the father is within you. You will also know that the father is within others, and that each of us is really only 1 being in the end(the father).

This is the father and son relationship. The father is unlimited and all knowing, and much greater than any of us. We are the sons/daughters. We have a limited perceptions, knowledge and so forth. The father purposely limits itself in order to create the limited perception needed to become the son. There is no difference in that which is simply "I am", which is the extension of the father within you. What is different is our limited perception.

So you will know and see for yourself how exactly that is when you are born of spirit.

Jesus talks about as being like a vine. And at the end of each vine you find the fruits. Each individual consciousness/person/spirit/soul is a fruit of the vine.

What is a soul? Nothing but the separation from the father. It is the soul that gives one an individuality outside/seperate of the father and the limited perception. To sell your soul is to give away that individuality, to give away the free will that is of the father and so forth. And so when people sell their souls, they become puppets - giving away their individuality and their free will. Course doesn't really matter, because it's the fathers anyway and all things of the father will return to the father.

Thus the point you can't cross and why you can't see the father completely. If you did, then your limited perception would be lost. And you would simply be "absorbed" by the father. You would no longer exist as an individual, your soul would be lost. This will happen to all eventually, but until that point is what is up for grabs. You can go beyond that point if you want, but you can't return obviously. You would just no longer exist.

That verse is talking about a specific experience. Without the experience and understanding that comes with it, I don't think it's really possible for most to understand. Yet again that verse spoke to me in such a deep manner of truth and understanding that it got me to look at the bible.

Jesus is the first thing that the Father/God created according to the bible… Jesus is unique. Do you know of anyone else, who is or has been, a true expression of the way, the truth and the life?

People who are righteous are not as rare as you may think. As the commandments themselves aren't that hard to keep really when understood properly. Not all the problems we have as humans and not all our struggles are against the commandments. We all have our own little things to deal with, the commandments themselves are mostly dealing with how we treat others. Thus, a peacemaker for example is blessed because they are trying to get people to follow the commandments properly.

What Jesus did is different. A person can keep the commandments and never say a word, just follow the path and so forth. Jesus spoke up and tried to show others.

If you look at the parts where he talks about what it takes to be a disciple, which is someone who will speak the truth - the requirements are in themselves beyond that which is required of the normal person. This is due to the manner in which you will be treat. They had to hate this world, throw away their families and so forth. Because if they held on to these kinds of things, it would be used against them and they will not stay true. As Jesus says, what would people say of the man who starts to build a house, but never finishes it? Thus, in order to be a disciple meant things beyond that which is normal. And so obviously the same is true of Jesus.

Jesus is not the first thing that is created. I think that might be an example of what I mentioned before with the reverse use of "the word". The word is that which is created and is the foundation of creation etc. So, people then say oh well Jesus said - before Abraham was, I am. The key in that is - I am. Remember again - what is you? He's talking about spirit/soul/consciousness. It's eternal as it is part of the father, and so was there before Abraham was. He is speak from and of that. Yet, this you could also do and see just as he did.

Sorry if I'm losing you here, but it's all connected and goes together. You have to understand the spirit in order to understand what is really being expressed.

It does say somewhere in the bible, but I’m not sure where, that no one can look upon the Father/God and live. So it seems more likely that you either saw an angel or Jesus, partly because Jesus has been described in the bible, as one shinning like the sun.

Yes, I have addressed much of this already, but I have been to that point. To where the only being in existance were me and the father - that which Jesus is speaking of when he says that about before Abraham bit. And it was then that I was given the understanding I spoke of early as to why I could not go beyond that point and still exist.

Feel free to drill me. I put a good bit out and I'd be surprised if it was a bit confusing as many things are hard to explain. But again, it all ties in together. My entire perception was changed "On that day", and I doubt I would have been able to understand myself before that happened.

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
When I talk about that of Jesus that I know is true, I am more speaking of an archetype. And that the archetype itself is that of the father(does the will of the father) and the example of Jesus in the bible fits the bill perfectly. All that kind of stuff I know is true. Perhaps that makes more sense?

Yes, that makes a lot more sense…


Don’t you think it would be easier, if the archetype actually existed in the flesh...

The thing is if Jesus doesn’t exist, then there are going to be too many things in the bible, that just don’t add up. Paul himself is one of the main key witnesses for the actual existence of Jesus, even if he never actually met him, although there are others of course.

You have had this amazing experience, which has led you to believe in the Father/God, which is great, and you can now look at Jesus words in the bible and know that they are from the Father/God. Don’t you think the next logical step, is to take a tiny leap of faith and say, “yes, Jesus existed in the flesh?” After all, part of what makes up a persons belief, is having some knowledge combined with faith, it’s talked about in many passages in the bible.

Originally posted by badmedia
The statement is still true. That verse is speaking of the moment and specific day someone is born of spirit. That is why it starts out - on that day. On that day you will know. On the day you are born of spirit, you will know the father is within you. You will also know that the father is within others, and that each of us is really only 1 being in the end(the father).

Yes, I believe it’s talking about being born again as well, the only difference is that I believe, both Jesus and the Father come to dwell in a person. My reason is because of the verses I have already pointed out, in my other posts i.e. John 14:20 and John 14:23.

Originally posted by badmedia
Jesus talks about as being like a vine. And at the end of each vine you find the fruits. Each individual consciousness/person/spirit/soul is a fruit of the vine.

NIV
John 15:1-2

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

I’m going to assume you agree, that the above verse is Jesus speaking.



Does this verse not help to convince you, that the Father created Jesus?

Does this verse not convince you, that Jesus is more than just a man or a person writing the fairytale?


Jesus is the vine, the Father is the Gardener/Creator and we are the branches.


The vine is greater than the branches, hence Jesus was no ordinary man/vessel. He is the first born of all creation, all other things were created through Jesus and the Father, he is the second most powerful being, in the entire infinite universe. This is why Jesus also comes to dwell in us, along with the Father, when a person becomes born again and receives the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus helps to bring us to God because once you are in the vine, you are automatically in the garden i.e. in the Father.

Originally posted by badmedia
Yes, I have addressed much of this already, but I have been to that point. To where the only being in existance were me and the father - that which Jesus is speaking of when he says that about before Abraham bit. And it was then that I was given the understanding I spoke of early as to why I could not go beyond that point and still exist.

You have already said yourself, that by being in the Fathers presence, you would be “absorbed” and the bible agrees with you, too some extent, by saying that “no man can see God and live”. This is why, along with your “shining like the sun” description, I think the being you saw in your experience was Jesus, plus Jesus is the only one, who could have directed you, towards the Father.



- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
Yes, that makes a lot more sense…


Don’t you think it would be easier, if the archetype actually existed in the flesh...

The thing is if Jesus doesn’t exist, then there are going to be too many things in the bible, that just don’t add up. Paul himself is one of the main key witnesses for the actual existence of Jesus, even if he never actually met him, although there are others of course.

Take the movie the matrix. Is that story literally real and true? No, it's just a movie. Yet despite this fact, the movie/story itself still speaks truth on many levels. That the movie is not literally real and true does not have any effect towards what it is expressing, and so if even if the movie wasn't there - those things would have still been true etc.

So to me, debating about if Jesus is real or not is on the same level of arguing over if the Matrix is real or not. It's all besides the point.

Paul's witness is false I think. In a vision those around you neither hear or see anything. Even if we ignore how the story changes in this regard, none of them are actually in line. The only way it could have been true would be the Moses exception(Numbers 12). A person was sitting right next to me when I had my vision, and they didn't have the first clue it happened. This I would likely overlook if not for the other contradictions, because how would anyone who hasn't had a vision know 1 way or the other?

You have had this amazing experience, which has led you to believe in the Father/God, which is great, and you can now look at Jesus words in the bible and know that they are from the Father/God. Don’t you think the next logical step, is to take a tiny leap of faith and say, “yes, Jesus existed in the flesh?” After all, part of what makes up a persons belief, is having some knowledge combined with faith, it’s talked about in many passages in the bible.

But you are not asking me to believe it. Belief is easy. What you are asking me to do is profess it as fact as if I had witnessed it, and I am not a liar and I will not do it. If I did that, then I would be bearing false witness to you and to everyone else. I will always point to the father instead.

If the father wants me to profess such is fact, then I would have witnessed and would know such. If I am deemed as false because of the bible or whatever, then so be it. I will not lie about my experience or understanding, and I will not mold to anyone's ideas on what things should be for their comfort or benefit.

I understand that you don't realize it, but you are asking me to lie and bear false witness here. I won't do it.

Yes, I believe it’s talking about being born again as well, the only difference is that I believe, both Jesus and the Father come to dwell in a person. My reason is because of the verses I have already pointed out, in my other posts i.e. John 14:20 and John 14:23.

But I can only testify it as meaning that which Jesus represents, rather than a being named Jesus. And to take that and only see it as a being named Jesus is to not see it at all.

John 15:1-2

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

I’m going to assume you agree, that the above verse is Jesus speaking.

No, that is not a being named Jesus speaking. That is the spirit/father. As it is the spirit which is the vine, and the souls are the fruits. In the manner Jesus is speaking it means that all would be Jesus. The vine is the tree of life.

Does this verse not help to convince you, that the Father created Jesus?

Does this verse not convince you, that Jesus is more than just a man or a person writing the fairytale?

I can attest that all that Jesus speaks of outside the flesh is real and true. I do not have a problem with it. In that manner, I can honestly say that I know "Jesus" very well. But when you are talking about in the flesh - that I do not know. I do not know a being named Jesus. And I do not have a problem saying that such became flesh as this is what all people are.

Do you see the difference? If you want to look at Jesus in terms of the father and spirit, then I know Jesus well. If you want to talk about a flesh Jesus, then I do not know. And I have no exceptions to this being true, none at all. But I can't say it because I don't know.

If you want to call the connections of each other, as in John 14:20 a vine and see it as a vine, and you want to call it Jesus, then fine I know Jesus. But when you say is as Jesus a being in the flesh, then you have reduced all that into a single being - and that is not the case at all. It's in reverse.

You have already said yourself, that by being in the Fathers presence, you would be “absorbed” and the bible agrees with you, too some extent, by saying that “no man can see God and live”. This is why, along with your “shining like the sun” description, I think the being you saw in your experience was Jesus, plus Jesus is the only one, who could have directed you, towards the Father.

It was the father I seen, I knew it immediately and without question. I didn't even ask, and didn't need to be told. Because upon the arrival the understanding of father and son relationship and all that came with it. I could question the vision in terms of being real, but the understanding itself i couldn't(I thought I was going crazy once I first reflected upon the experience).

But yes, it is impossible to be all the father, and is nothing more than a representation of it. If you want to call that Jesus, then that is also fine. Yet, if it is Jesus and it is so important to believe the flesh part as for me to bear false witness to the effect - then wouldn't I have been told such?

You have to understand the religion is seen and taught as foolish because the actual things are beyond the labels and so the focus is not on the expression, but the meaning and understanding. Religion is seen as foolish because it focuses on the expression over the understanding, and when such a big deal is made about Jesus in the flesh like this, to me it is along those lines. It is as if you are expecting me to accept all those things I experienced as only a single person etc.

Awesome thread and something which I have also struggled with. Before I thought of this topic and before I reasearched it I actually had a theory ( which I didnt believe but which was quite possible ) that Jesus could be the the anti-christ, you know the way he comes and changes the whole way in which God is served, the way he fits the attributes of the anti-christ, u know comes in Gods name does miracles and signs from heaven and then says no one goes to the father except through me.

But I long ago forewent that possibility since I believe that Jesus was a very enlightened teacher, who did everything with love and compassion.

However I do not trust in the Bible and also not in any church. I believe basically like the hellenites ( I hope I got that right ) that the word of God is written in your heart and if you accept him as the creator and source of everything, that he informs your judgement.

My main point I wish to add is that for those who do not know, that the Quran actually deals with this point specifically. I recently read a book entitled " Jesus a prophet of Islam". Now you might ask why I mention the Quran in a topic about Christianity. The fact is that the Quran, just like the Jewish Torah, is very similar and in fact in some cases exactly like the Bible. However Muslims feel that the Bible is untrustworthy as it has been changed to suit the needs of society. Whereas the Quran has always stayed the same, not even a letter has been changed.

The muslims like the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. And also that he was not crucified, they attribute all these beliefs, which they say goes against the original teachings of Christ. to Saulus (LAter Paul) who became the leader of What we call today Christians. Now you might not want to believe this, but it is an unassailable fact that the church changed the Bible to suit their needs, when they decided which of the hundreds of Gospels should form part of the Bible. ( I could be wrong but think it was the council of Nicea).

Therefore I truly believe that the Christianity of today could be exactly what God and Jesus did not intend. And I believe that the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and if you look at the Historical track record of the church it is far from Godly. The dark ages, the inquisition, homophobia and all things not borne of love.

So if you really are interested in this topic you might find some help in unexpected places ( like the Quran ).

On a side note although I do not completely trust the bible I believe in alot of what is said in it. My theory is also as stated in the Bible that what you see is not always what you get, because much of what is written is done in parables, so that only those that have vision truly understand what is written. For instance the creation story of Adam and Eve and how they were tempted by the snake to eat of the tree of knowledge. There is too much symbolism and revealing texts to believe that this is actually a story of the fall rather than a story of awakening.

I hope I havent posted what others have said already, its en extremely long thread and please forgive me if I just rehashed alot of other posts.