Jesus is not God.

[Mickiel]

You show me the Father God being turned into flesh in scripture, and I'll eat my bible; Christianity is the bible stupid!

You already know, and I'm sure you have some way to twist the plain meaning of the text into something grotesque that doesn't even resemble it.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, which version are you going to eat? I hear the KJV is particularly sweet on the tongue, but bitter in the stomach.

Show me the Father being turned into Jesus on a cross. You can't do it; just like you can't interpret the bible.

That's not what you asked. I gave you what you asked for. Now start eating.

As you wish;

alright I am finished. Tasted bad.

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

 

[hadit]

You already know, and I'm sure you have some way to twist the plain meaning of the text into something grotesque that doesn't even resemble it.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, which version are you going to eat? I hear the KJV is particularly sweet on the tongue, but bitter in the stomach.

Show me the Father being turned into Jesus on a cross. You can't do it; just like you can't interpret the bible.

That's not what you asked. I gave you what you asked for. Now start eating.

As you wish;

alright I am finished. Tasted bad.

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

 

[Mickiel]

Show me the Father being turned into Jesus on a cross. You can't do it; just like you can't interpret the bible.

That's not what you asked. I gave you what you asked for. Now start eating.

As you wish;

alright I am finished. Tasted bad.

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

The Word was Jesus, " A son of God." Jesus was the firstborn; God has no birth.

 

[hadit]

That's not what you asked. I gave you what you asked for. Now start eating.

As you wish;

alright I am finished. Tasted bad.

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

The Word was Jesus, " A son of God." Jesus was the firstborn; God has no birth.

Yes, the Word is Jesus, and the Word was God. You can't avoid it, Scripture says God became flesh. He became the first born by being the first to raise Himself from the dead into His resurrected body, something He could do because He became flesh.

 

[Mickiel]

As you wish;

alright I am finished. Tasted bad.

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

The Word was Jesus, " A son of God." Jesus was the firstborn; God has no birth.

Yes, the Word is Jesus, and the Word was God. You can't avoid it, Scripture says God became flesh. He became the first born by being the first to raise Himself from the dead into His resurrected body, something He could do because He became flesh.

This is one reason why the religious world is deceived. Christians.

 

[HaShev]

Looks like you guys are inadvertantly discovering the early trinity beliefs
which was Father-Word-Son.
The trinity was first
Father (Baal)Mother (Ishtar/Isis)Son(morning star), but it eventually became
Father(Baal), Word(his mythology), Son (the morning star).
Someone in the Church(a Cardinal or Pope recently made a strange admission that Jesus was a figment compiled reflective image of one to come mentioned in many cultures visions & lores- thus words.
=the mystery of the Trinity.
In other words they admit writing an image/persona out of words, it becomes a live character, but they admitted he was based on (the [essence]spirit) of what was to come not what actually existed in the time of the compiling.
Words have an essence nature it portrays thus Father -holy spirit(the essence they captured in words)-son.

To bad that essence was opposition to knowledge and truth and they promoted the essence of deception and ancient harvest scams over precepts that elevate and heal society.

 

[hobelim]

As you wish;

alright I am finished. Tasted bad.

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

The Word was Jesus, " A son of God." Jesus was the firstborn; God has no birth.

Yes, the Word is Jesus, and the Word was God. You can't avoid it, Scripture says God became flesh. He became the first born by being the first to raise Himself from the dead into His resurrected body, something He could do because He became flesh.

The word became flesh is the author establishing flesh as a new metaphor for the preexisting metaphor for the word of God - manna from heaven, the food of angels.

The word of God, teaching from heaven, became flesh in the person of Jesus. The body of Christ are the words that form the body of this teaching from God, given for the life of the world.

To eat his flesh is to receive the teaching that Jesus received from God revealing the figurative nature of the words and hidden subjects in the divine commands..

"The word became flesh" has nothing whatever to do with God becoming a human being...

 

[LittleNipper]

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

The Word was Jesus, " A son of God." Jesus was the firstborn; God has no birth.

Yes, the Word is Jesus, and the Word was God. You can't avoid it, Scripture says God became flesh. He became the first born by being the first to raise Himself from the dead into His resurrected body, something He could do because He became flesh.

This is one reason why the religious world is deceived. Christians.

The religious are not Christian. They are pagan and trying to earn their way to heaven. Without Christ there is no way man can enter heaven.

 

[Mickiel]

Nice to see you admit that you were wrong and that the Bible does say God became flesh. A lot of people can't bring themselves to admit when they are wrong.

The bible does not say God became flesh, it says the word became flesh. No where have I admitted any wrong, I just grow tired of your thick wall.

"And the Word was God". Did you miss that part?

The Word was Jesus, " A son of God." Jesus was the firstborn; God has no birth.

Yes, the Word is Jesus, and the Word was God. You can't avoid it, Scripture says God became flesh. He became the first born by being the first to raise Himself from the dead into His resurrected body, something He could do because He became flesh.

The word became flesh is the author establishing flesh as a new metaphor for the preexisting metaphor for the word of God - manna from heaven, the food of angels.

The word of God, teaching from heaven, became flesh in the person of Jesus. The body of Christ are the words that form the body of this teaching from God, given for the life of the world.

To eat his flesh is to receive the teaching that Jesus received from God revealing the figurative nature of the words and hidden subjects in the divine commands..

"The word became flesh" has nothing whatever to do with God becoming a human being...

I certainly agree.

 

[DOTR]

Christians, however, believe Jesus is the one true God.
You believe what you like though.

 

[Likkmee]

It's interesting that Jesus didn't become God until the last of the four gospels. Somebody forgot to tell the writers or the synoptics. You would think something as important as Jesus being God would have been something the synoptic writers would have mentioned.Hmmm.

What are you trying to say? And why is it you come off as Margot? See post above this and cry, k?

Who's Margot?

What I'm saying is that Jesus is not depicted as God in the synoptic gospels, only in John. The other gospel writers disagree.

As in they write something to the contrary, or nothing at all?

Or..my personal observation: You're fulla shit.

Very few things in the Bible are contradictory.

Do the insults help? Because they only make you look shallow.

Nowhere do the synoptic gospels equate Jesus with God. Why? Because that was a later legendary development. I would challenge you to prove to me that Jesus is God using only the synoptic gospels.

I would challenge you to refute the truth of The Bible.

This guy speaks truth

 

[Likkmee]

another

 

[hobelim]

Christians, however, believe Jesus is the one true God.
You believe what you like though.

thanks.

You might not realize this but by professing to believe that God became a human being you might as well have non compos mentis tattooed on your forehead.

 

[HaShev]

What part of God is not a man nor form do they not understand? And....
Let me get this straight, SOME Christians believe this man god didn't know his own rules? Didn't know his own Bible?
Didn't know that demons don't come out your nose when you sneeze or possess disabled people? Didn't know his own
name? Didn't think through the whole impregnated his own mom icky incest impression of the father -son gimick?
Didn't know that calling himself the
Morning star was terming himself the enemy of himself?
Didn't know the end was not near, nor the kingdom. Didn't know Rome the enemy would thrive and disperse and persecute his people? Didn't know how to keep his people from confusing the many Christs?
AND Talked to himself asking himself why he had foresaken himself?

 

[hobelim]

What part of God is not a man nor form do they not understand? And....
Let me get this straight, SOME Christians believe this man god didn't know his own rules? Didn't know his own Bible?
Didn't know that demons don't come out your nose when you sneeze or possess disabled people? Didn't know his own
name? Didn't think through the whole impregnated his own mom icky incest impression of the father -son gimick?
Didn't know that calling himself the
Morning star was terming himself the enemy of himself?
Didn't know the end was not near, nor the kingdom. Didn't know Rome the enemy would thrive and disperse and persecute his people? Didn't know how to keep his people from confusing the many Christs?
AND Talked to himself asking himself why he had foresaken himself?

I see the inability to comprehend the wrongness of such a belief as evidence of the death consequent to defying the command to not worship that which is not God.

What makes it even more astonishing is that one would have to throw the entire teaching of the OT and most of whats written in the NT in the trash and base that claim on a few verses where Jesus said something vague about his relationship with God which are not claims to divinity or else, if they were, prove only that Jesus was insane.

Aside from all of that you already know that this mithraic worship of a mangod had nothing to do with early christian beliefs and practices and were deliberate interpretational perversions of whats written in the gospels that became compulsory beliefs after 325.c.e..

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

What part of God is not a man nor form do they not understand? And....
Let me get this straight, SOME Christians believe this man god didn't know his own rules? Didn't know his own Bible?
Didn't know that demons don't come out your nose when you sneeze or possess disabled people? Didn't know his own
name? Didn't think through the whole impregnated his own mom icky incest impression of the father -son gimick?
Didn't know that calling himself the
Morning star was terming himself the enemy of himself?
Didn't know the end was not near, nor the kingdom. Didn't know Rome the enemy would thrive and disperse and persecute his people? Didn't know how to keep his people from confusing the many Christs?
AND Talked to himself asking himself why he had foresaken himself?

So much nonsense from you on this topic.

I'll explain the last only.

Yeshua came, among other reasons to REVEAL the Father (not "Himself").

The Being Moses knew WAS the Logos. Moses did not know the Father.

One of the "Angels" that came to check out the wickedness of Sodom WAS the Logos, the One who spoke and created ALL THINGS.

The God of the OT that so many "christians" hate, was the one they call "Jesus."

 

[HaShev]

base that claim on a few verses where Jesus said something vague about his relationship with God which are not claims to divinity ..........
written in the gospels that became compulsory beliefs after 325.c.e..

Jesus said? Or is it actually the early Church using the image to say the words Eusebius forged into text?
Our news media constantly adds it's own words or clever word play to elude to a new narrative that fits theirs. Biblical interpretation and writings fall into this same word play game.

 

[HaShev]

What part of God is not a man nor form do they not understand? And....
Let me get this straight, SOME Christians believe this man god didn't know his own rules? Didn't know his own Bible?
Didn't know that demons don't come out your nose when you sneeze or possess disabled people? Didn't know his own
name? Didn't think through the whole impregnated his own mom icky incest impression of the father -son gimick?
Didn't know that calling himself the
Morning star was terming himself the enemy of himself?
Didn't know the end was not near, nor the kingdom. Didn't know Rome the enemy would thrive and disperse and persecute his people? Didn't know how to keep his people from confusing the many Christs?
AND Talked to himself asking himself why he had foresaken himself?

So much nonsense from you on this topic.

I'll explain the last only.

Yeshua came, among other reasons to REVEAL the Father (not "Himself").

The Being Moses knew WAS the Logos. Moses did not know the Father.

One of the "Angels" that came to check out the wickedness of Sodom WAS the Logos, the One who spoke and created ALL THINGS.

The God of the OT that so many "christians" hate, was the one they call "Jesus."

Yeshu is the 100bc figure, far cry from the King Herod era Galilean Christ in 6bc or the Jordan river Pilate era A.D. era Christ who's apostles were martyrs.

 

[hobelim]

base that claim on a few verses where Jesus said something vague about his relationship with God which are not claims to divinity ..........
written in the gospels that became compulsory beliefs after 325.c.e..

Jesus said? Or is it actually the early Church using the image to say the words Eusebius forged into text?
Our news media constantly adds it's own words or clever word play to elude to a new narrative that fits theirs. Biblical interpretation and writings fall into this same word play game.

The gospels were written at least a century before Eusebius was even born.

There goes that theory....


The gospels speak of the keys to the secrets of the kingdom of heaven but never reveal what they are.

Such things were held back from the laypeople just as the hidden meaning of the law was withheld from public knowledge.

Once those who held the keys to such secrets were killed all the enemy had left were fantastical stories written on scrolls that they could never comprehend without the keys to understanding, whether after the first or second temple destruction.

 

[HaShev]

base that claim on a few verses where Jesus said something vague about his relationship with God which are not claims to divinity ..........
written in the gospels that became compulsory beliefs after 325.c.e..

Jesus said? Or is it actually the early Church using the image to say the words Eusebius forged into text?
Our news media constantly adds it's own words or clever word play to elude to a new narrative that fits theirs. Biblical interpretation and writings fall into this same word play game.

The gospels were written at least a century before Eusebius was even born.

There goes that theory....


The gospels speak of the keys to the secrets of the kingdom of heaven but never reveal what they are.

Such things were held back from the laypeople just as the hidden meaning of the law was withheld from public knowledge.

Once those who held the keys to such secrets were killed all the enemy had left were fantastical stories written on scrolls that they could never comprehend without the keys to understanding, whether after the first or second temple destruction.

No, there's a few changes like In John where earlier copies read different then later copies. If you read about what Eusebius (called the great liar) did, you'd understand how precepts can change through the Church making changes that fit their new narrative.
JOHN 9:35
In the KJV, the verse reads thus:
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
All of the earliest codices and papyri, however, read thus:
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"
While the first reading is supported by the majority of manuscripts after the fifth century, the latter reading is supported by all of the second through fourth century manuscripts of John's gospel, including the oldest extant papyri, P75 and P66, as well as the earliest codices, including Aleph, B, D, W, and other witnesses.