my thoughts about jesus and god.. and questions to the more experienced.

The "Son" is the individualization of the "Father" or Spirit (John 4:24). Each one of us is the Son of God because we are all unique individualizations of the One Father, we all have our unique perspectives but we all come from the same source which is greater than the individual. The parts are not greater than the sum but the parts are still One with the sum if that makes any sense. This is why Jesus said that he and the Father were One and also that the Father was greater than himself in my opinion, I do not see it as a contradiction with my current understanding personally but I can understand how some do.

When Jesus said "if you have seen me then you have seen the Father", I believe he meant it in a different way than what Christianity teaches. To see "Jesus" is to see the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). This "image" is the vision you and I have. As you read this paragraph you are reading it through the image you see, that is the image of God in my opinion and from each individuals (Sons) perspective they are their image because that is how and what they identify themselves with. The image (Son) is the thing that gives one their identity. The image you see is the "light of the world" (John 8:12) because it lights up the world around you.

To see the image of light in front of you is to see the Father because the Father is the sum of all the individual parts (you and I). We all share the same image but we all have unique perspectives on it. If we both look at the moon at the same time, at that moment we are sharing the same image because we both see the same thing. We all share the same planet and universe so in turn we also share the same image and there is only one image which we all share.

This is why Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God", because there is only one image and we are all it. We are what we see which is the image of God. This is where John 14:20 comes into play because we are all part of the same source which is what Jesus called the "Father".

In my opinion the real Trinity is the Father (seer of the image), Mother (what is seen within the image), and Son (the image itself). We are all three in One because we have both a body (Mother) and Spirit (Father) and when those two are "married" there is the image (Son).

We are the Word made flesh in my opinion because the Word is the Spirit and the flesh is the body. Just my 2 cents, hopefully I made some kind of sense here.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Jesus called them money changers and the Temple Pharisees he said ; they call themselves Jews but are of the Synagogue of Satan . Now we see the moneychangers and Khazars that say they are Jews and are not and behind the Globalist Plan from the 1700s that we call the NWO .

reply to post by Belcastro

Was jesus equal to god or was he god himself?

"The Father" in that age would be Zeus.
Being the father of all the gods, even if rather indirectly, the concept is still there.
Now when Greek speakers back then said, "God", they really meant "the gods" but said it in the singular, focusing on that same concept that the word, Zeus, would call to mind when saying, "God".
Rather than saying "Zeus", which would have immediately alienated all the fanatic anti-Hellenistic Jews who he was addressing, Jesus would have said, "Father", actually meaning Zeus, in a conceptual sort of way, but really meaning all the gods in a corporate way, such as 'the council of the sons of God', but without there really being an actual individual who existed who was the literal father of them all.

why did the hebrews say that, to say you are god's son is to say you are equal to god?

That's in John 5:18 where he doesn't just say that God is his father, but does say that the same rules that apply to God apply equally to him, so by logic, Jesus is claiming to be God's equivalent.

To the OP:

Chuck Missler has done some good work on explaining the trinity and it's OT and NT "contradictions". You can look up some of his written work online or check out this radio interview if you have the time:



The trinity is a very tough subject. It has been hotly debated by various denominations through out Christian History. Personally, I still struggle with many concepts regarding the trinity and what scripture says about God the father and Jesus the Son, so the best I can offer is Chuck's musings (whom I've found to have had some very insightful things to say on the subject).

I hope you find the answers you are seeking

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Jesus is God. He was God manifest in the flesh (John 1:14).

It doesn't literally say that.
John (or properly, whoever wrote John) was talking about the Logos, which was then a philosophical term for the prime mover of the universe.
John adapts that term and uses it to describe basically the god interface between divinity and pure spirit, with the material and physical.
He uses as an example, creation, where God speaks and it becomes so, that thing inextricably connected to what manifests itself as god, that 'god-force', which is His will being fulfilled, is evident in a very substantial sort of way.
So John is saying, that thing, like what we might think of in the Sinai story, this glorious thing that made the Israelites know that God was there and doing all those things, was there, with Jesus, where as much as the Israelites knew that The Lord was in the tabernacle by the Shekhinah sitting above it, the disciples who were at the Jordan River that day knew that God's presence was in their midst, something unique to God and could not be mistaken for anything else.

So we see here that Jesus was with God in the beginning, and not only was He with God, but that He IS God, and ALL things were made by Him and through Him. We know this is Jesus, because as I mentioned before, when you get down to John 1:14 we see..

You are making a circular argument, using one interpretation to interpret another verse to go back and interpret the one before.
To repeat, it never says those things literally.
John is talking about a philosophical concept to describe by analogy how we have a church which replaces the former dwelling of God, according to the story, a tent in the Sinai.
God dwells in us as we dwell among each other.
It never expressly mentions Jesus in particular.

The Word became flesh... this is Jesus Christ... God manifest in the flesh.

This is your theory, based mainly, no doubt, on a translation which was make by order of a king by the name of James, to support the doctrines of the church which he was the head of, since there had been an earlier separation of the English church from Rome, replacing as the head, the Pope, with the king.
What the Greek says is "Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto" (transliterated).
Which could be translated, "And then there was a divine spirit made available to humanity".

reply to post by Belcastro

What the church says about the Trinity is about putting together four elements;
1. The Father.
2. The Son.
3. The Holy Spirit.
4. Jesus the man.

The Trinity is the first three, taken as a combination.
The three of them are one God, and each of them individually can be described as God, being part of the Deity.

Christ is the combination of the Son and Jesus the man.
So I think the phrase "Jesus is God" confuses the discussion.
I always prefer saying "Christ is both God and man".
(I did a thread on the subject; God and man; The meaning of "Incarnation"
He is God because he is the Son and he is man because he is Jesus.

So "My Father is greater than I" can be explained in two ways, both true.
One is that AS MAN, Jesus was bound to say that God was greater than himself.
The other is that even as God, there is a sense in which the Son is subordinate to the Father.
So Christ is in some sense subordinate, both as man and as God.

reply to post by Belcastro

Also, The child in revelation that is being given birth to by the woman being chased by the dragon....
Is it foretelling the re-birth or Incarnation of the christ? as in the second time happening..

It is using imagery that was common knowledge at the time, to explain a concept of the forces of darkness that are the enemy of mankind, being vanquished by the heavenly forces, borrowing from the myth of Marduk as the cosmic warrior.

reply to post by Belcastro

. . . im afraid to accept jesus as god, maybe not afraid.... but hesitant.

The fact that people believe in Jesus and are not afraid to say so, is proof that God is with us.

Belcastro
i really wish i could understand revelation, i know alot of it is referable to other parts of the bible.
but its really hard to sit down and read the whole bible, study it, and KNOW what the stuff in revelation means.

i assume that revelation references things in the old testament quite a bit.

You are right. The Old Testament is like a code-book which explains all the mataphors in Revelation.
I've done a whole series of threads on that basis, going through Revelation systematically;
Revelation Index

Belcastro

Also, The child in revelation that is being given birth to by the woman being chased by the dragon....
Is it foretelling the re-birth or Incarnation of the christ? as in the second time happening..

This is a "flashback" scene, as in the films.
It has the same purpose of explaining the background to what is happening.
It is not looking forward but looking backward to the original Incarnation and Resurrection.

reply to post by Belcastro

The dragon had seven heads 10 horns and seven crowns upon its head, how does that reference to king herod?

It's called the Red dragon in Revelation 12.
The horns and crowns bit was probably added by scribes, later, to make it consistent with the other creatures or whatever in Revelation.
They were good at doing things like that, always trying to "fix" things that they suspected were earlier mistakes or just lapses out of laziness or something.

reply to post by DISRAELI

The Old Testament is like a code-book which explains all the mataphors in Revelation.

You wouldn't think so from reading recent scholarly commentaries on Revelation.
A lot of what Revelation is based on has nothing to do with the Old Testament, but whatever was the popular culture of the time, which included a lot of extra-biblical writings and a lot of even pagan beliefs, whether right or wrong, according to the writer.

reply to post by DISRAELI

It is not looking forward but looking backward to the original Incarnation and Resurrection.

If so, it is a connection that has never been adequately explained.
There is no one to one corresponding explanation for the story of the woman and child in Revelation 12 outside of the old Parthian myths.

jmdewey60
" The Word became flesh... this is Jesus Christ... God manifest in the flesh."
This is your theory, based mainly, no doubt, on a translation which was make by order of a king by the name of James, to support the doctrines of the church which he was the head of, since there had been an earlier separation of the English church from Rome, replacing as the head, the Pope, with the king.
What the Greek says is "Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto" (transliterated).
Which could be translated, "And then there was a divine spirit made available to humanity".

That first line was settled as the standard teaching of the church more than a thousand years before that translation was made.
It is absurd to blame that teaching on the Authorised Version, which did absolutely nothing to change the Bible in that respect.

The Greek phrase "HO LOGOS SARX EGENETO" is normally translated by everybody as "The Word BECAME flesh".
There is no reason why EGENETO should be translated as "made available to"- it doesn't have that meaning anywhere else.
Have you not noticed, also, that SARX is in the NOMINATIVE case?
This is important.
I should explain, for the benefit of those who don't know Greek, that the nominative case is used for the SUBJECT of the verb.
In the quoted sentence, LOGOS and SARX are both Nominative, which is appropriate if they both refer to the subject of the sentence (the subject WAS the first and then also BECAME the second).
If the verb meant "made available to", then SARX would not have been in the nominative case. It would have been in the dative case, as you, with your knowledge of Greek, ought to have realised.

reply to post by ccseagull

That is why God sent Him here - to stand in place for judgement by God. Jesus was perfect and He stood in our place so that God would judge Him instead of us. When God looks at us He sees Jesus and not us if that makes sense to you. Imagine a magic cloak that covers you and that the cloak removes all dirt. Now say you've just crawled through a mud pit and you are standing covered in mud. The cloak is thrown over you and when people see you all they see is you shining clean. This is how Jesus covers us with His perfection when God looks at us.

The Bible doesn't say any of that.
Theologians in the past have come up with conclusions like that but I personally wouldn't put my trust in mere human speculation and theories.
Jesus is our High Priest, in an allegorical sense, it does make that point in the Bible.
But to pass judgment, we need to be "in" Christ, which means having God's spirit in us through Jesus, to be sanctified to good works.
We can't pass judgment in our sins.
There is a power of God for us to become cleansed of sin, by keeping the faith of Jesus, which is a life of holiness.
A "pretend" holiness by just claiming to "believe" is exactly what Jesus was speaking against when he said that "in that day" there will be those calling, "Lord, Lord".

jmdewey60
" It is not looking forward but looking backward to the original Incarnation and Resurrection"
If so, it is a connection that has never been adequately explained.

The Woman in Heaven

reply to post by DISRAELI

There is no reason why EGENETO should be translated as "made available to"- it doesn't have that meaning anywhere else.

It does, actually, in the Septuagint.
It is in connection with a dwelling place, interestingly, which fits with the context here in John.
It is in Genesis telling the story of Joseph and his living in the palace or whatever in Egypt.

Have you not noticed, also, that SARX is in the NOMINATIVE case?

As is also, Logos, so it may just be complementary and is not significant in itself.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I assume, though, that the object of the verb "made available to" was not in the nominative case?
As SARX is?

reply to post by DISRAELI

I assume, though, that the object of the verb "made available to" was not in the nominative case?
As SARX is?

The "verb" is really just a convention that is established by accepted usage to mean that a certain situation came about, so its form is irrelevant other than to indicate the convention.

jmdewey60
"Have you not noticed, also, that SARX is in the NOMINATIVE case?"
As is also, Logos, so it may just be complementary and is not significant

I did point out that BOTH words, LOGOS and SARX are in the nominative case and explained why.
They are conjoined by the verb "became", so they both apply to the subject of the sentence.
Similarly, if "Abraham Lincoln became President" was written in Greek, both "Lincoln" ad "President" would have to be in the nominative case.
You really do need to brush up your knowledge on the significance of Greek cases. They are important clues to the structure and meaning of the sentence.