JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Status
Not open for further replies.

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Can you further explain? Or give me an example of how you come to believe something using this process?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Did God give you a soul with intelligence, reasoning faculties, etc.? Does 'God' also as an omnipresent Spirit indwell you and permeate all space? Can your 'mind' access the consciousness of 'God' that permeates all that exists? Can your mind be 'open' to the Spirit of God? - as a student of the Bible (or even of religious studies or philosoph, or life in general) Im surprised you ask the question. 'God' is the foundational reality and source of all. God is ALL.
 

Judson50

New member
Did God give you a soul with intelligence, reasoning faculties, etc.? Does 'God' also as an omnipresent Spirit indwell you and permeate all space? Can your 'mind' access the consciousness of 'God' that permeates all that exists? Can your mind be 'open' to the Spirit of God? - as a student of the Bible (or even of religious studies or philosoph, or life in general) Im surprised you ask the question. 'God' is the foundational reality and source of all. God is ALL.

I ask because I’m curious how you can “know” anything about God or what you just said “do I not have” if what is claimed to be “God Breathed” isn’t trustworthy. Or how does one decide “this” or “that” is God Breathed and how do you reply to someone else who believe otherwise, without being inconsistent.

Foe instance, “why” do you believe God is omnipresent if the text that’s states he is is “up for merit”.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
I ask because I’m curious how you can “know” anything about God or what you just said “do I not have” if what is claimed to be “God Breathed” isn’t trustworthy. Or how does one decide “this” or “that” is God Breathed and how do you reply to someone else who believe otherwise, without being inconsistent.

Foe instance, “why” do you believe God is omnipresent if the text that’s states he is is “up for merit”.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Epistemology issues are fun to explore. Then we have metaphysics, religion and philosophy. Concerning 'biblical inerrancy' i've already explained some of my reasoning to reject such. Concerning 'omnipresence' of SPIRIT ('God')...well,...thats a metaphysical assumption, yes....if we consider 'God' being the Source-energy, Living Spirit, LIFE, breath, living essence within all, and also transcending all as THE INFINITE. - all else beyond what can be readily impirically proved or physically objectified in the area of personal religious experience, is 'subjective' and relative to one's own experience.

All else regarding 'doctrine' will be judged or evaluated by similar criteria or methods of choosing what is more right, probable, logical, tenable, and 'spiritual' things being 'spiritually discerned' and so on. Every subject is expounded within its own special context.
 

KingdomRose

New member
I think that it is most reasonable to keep discussions among Bible-believers close to the theme that we would respect---how do our beliefs coordinate with what the Bible says. I started this thread about a subject that can be answered ONLY by referring to the Bible, because that is where we get any information about Jesus Christ, his Father (YHWH) and their relationship with each other. People can philosophize from sun up to sun down, but I'm not interested in people's opinions based on men's philosophy.

Let's continue to examine the Scriptures and compare our understandings of those Scriptures in these threads, esp. the ones that venture into Bible subjects. Would someone kindly say what they have deduced from participating in, or even just reading along with, this thread? What can you say about the OP's questions after this topic has now been extensively discussed?
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think that it is most reasonable to keep discussions among Bible-believers close to the theme that we would respect---how do our beliefs coordinate with what the Bible says. I started this thread about a subject that can be answered ONLY by referring to the Bible, because that is where we get any information about Jesus Christ, his Father (YHWH) and their relationship with each other. People can philosophize from sun up to sun down, but I'm not interested in people's opinions based on men's philosophy.

Let's continue to examine the Scriptures and compare our understandings of those Scriptures in these threads, esp. the ones that venture into Bible subjects. Would someone kindly say what they have deduced from participating in, or even just reading along with, this thread? What can you say about the OP's questions after this topic has now been extensively discussed?

This was put on the Trinity thread. Seems as though it belongs here too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7MpzFLbWLo Love it.
 

KingdomRose

New member
NO WAY. YHWH spoke TO Jesus, anointed Jesus, heard Jesus' prayers, told Jesus what to do. Jesus obeyed YHWH to the point of death, and as a result he was rewarded BY YHWH with authority and honor.

Psalm 110:1,2
Isaiah 61:1,2
John 17:1-26
John 8:28,29; 12:49,50
Philippians 2:8,9
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
No need to deify a man..........

No need to deify a man..........

I think that it is most reasonable to keep discussions among Bible-believers close to the theme that we would respect---how do our beliefs coordinate with what the Bible says. I started this thread about a subject that can be answered ONLY by referring to the Bible, because that is where we get any information about Jesus Christ, his Father (YHWH) and their relationship with each other. People can philosophize from sun up to sun down, but I'm not interested in people's opinions based on men's philosophy.


Hi KR,

I understand, however while being quite familiar with the historical doctrinal issues around the Trinity and the scriptural 'prooftexts' for both Trinitarian & Unitarian views, I expound also on universal truth principles, metaphysics and philosophical insights into the nature of God, his essential character, divine unity, etc.

God IS. God is One. God is Spirit.- out from God extends all multiples of creation, all things and all beings. God is the First Source and Center of that is. This foundation is agreed upon from both Unitarian and Trinitarian schools, with only differences in relational details between the Father and Son. - its a complication of technicalities, metaphysics and dogma.

For arguments sake and relational practicality, I've been sharing a more pro-Unitarian view, since it is fundamentally monotheistic in the truest sense, so add support for the soundness of Unitarianism (with my own eclectic nuance). There is no need for Jesus to be God, none whatsoever. His role as the AGENT of God is all that is relevant.

Of course if Arius had more support for the long haul during the struggles in the 4th century, a formal creed closer to an Arian view may have became 'orthodox', - however it didnt play out that way. This was more difficult with the strong trend to wholly deify Jesus, to make him 'God Almighty', something most Unitarians agree as being totally unnecessary.

Let's continue to examine the Scriptures and compare our understandings of those Scriptures in these threads, esp. the ones that venture into Bible subjects. Would someone kindly say what they have deduced from participating in, or even just reading along with, this thread? What can you say about the OP's questions after this topic has now been extensively discussed?

The problem is not solved by just using the bible to prove or support anything, since every kind of religious group or doctrine using the bible all have their own interpretation, translation, SPIN. It just becomes a circular debate on passages that could be interpreted this or that way, as whole proof texts are touted and scored up against different and opposing views.

This is why any claim of something being 'biblical' is somewhat arbitrary since something being labelled as such is no guarantee of its truth or validity. As being more of a theosophist I look to universal truth values, meanings and principles...and see these as being precepts of true religion. At the end of the day what matters is how you treat(serve) your fellowman, what kind of principles and values you live your life by, whether you have clean hands and a pure heart. This is true religion. This is the religion of Jesus.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Hi KR,

I understand, however while being quite familiar with the historical doctrinal issues around the Trinity and the scriptural 'prooftexts' for both Trinitarian & Unitarian views, I expound also on universal truth principles, metaphysics and philosophical insights into the nature of God, his essential character, divine unity, etc.

God IS. God is One. God is Spirit.- out from God extends all multiples of creation, all things and all beings. God is the First Source and Center of that is. This foundation is agreed upon from both Unitarian and Trinitarian schools, with only differences in relational details between the Father and Son. - its a complication of technicalities, metaphysics and dogma.

For arguments sake and relational practicality, I've been sharing a more pro-Unitarian view, since it is fundamentally monotheistic in the truest sense, so add support for the soundness of Unitarianism (with my own eclectic nuance). There is no need for Jesus to be God, none whatsoever. His role as the AGENT of God is all that is relevant.

Of course if Arius had more support for the long haul during the struggles in the 4th century, a formal creed closer to an Arian view may have became 'orthodox', - however it didnt play out that way. This was more difficult with the strong trend to wholly deify Jesus, to make him 'God Almighty', something most Unitarians agree as being totally unnecessary.



The problem is not solved by just using the bible to prove or support anything, since every kind of religious group or doctrine using the bible all have their own interpretation, translation, SPIN. It just becomes a circular debate on passages that could be interpreted this or that way, as whole proof texts are touted and scored up against different and opposing views.

This is why any claim of something being 'biblical' is somewhat arbitrary since something being labelled as such is no guarantee of its truth or validity. As being more of a theosophist I look to universal truth values, meanings and principles...and see these as being precepts of true religion. At the end of the day what matters is how you treat(serve) your fellowman, what kind of principles and values you live your life by, whether you have clean hands and a pure heart. This is true religion. This is the religion of Jesus.

I agree with your statements about what Jesus stands for, and that God is the center of everything and the Source of everything. I understand what you are saying about not being able to trust the Bible because there are so many takes on it, but I have always said that if someone really wanted to, they could learn which passages have been tampered with. They could learn to really THINK instead of taking a clergyman's word for something. They could see for themselves how a verse compares with other versions of the Bible. Examining an Interlinear Bible is extremely enlightening. I doubt if half the people in Christendom even know what an Interlinear Bible is. I have compared and studied and searched and examined for many years. It is possible to find out which version of all the Bibles is the most accurate.

Even though there are many views on various scriptures, I have wanted to get people's input so that we can hash over things and have an agreeable discussion. As hard as I've tried, it doesn't happen, at least on this forum. I will ask a question and someone will come on and call me names and won't try to discuss the subject I brought up. They'll fling verses at me without trying to reason with me about their point of view. It's quite frustrating. That's why I didn't come here for a few months.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Common Sense Unitarian.........

Common Sense Unitarian.........

I agree with your statements about what Jesus stands for, and that God is the center of everything and the Source of everything. I understand what you are saying about not being able to trust the Bible because there are so many takes on it, but I have always said that if someone really wanted to, they could learn which passages have been tampered with. They could learn to really THINK instead of taking a clergyman's word for something. They could see for themselves how a verse compares with other versions of the Bible. Examining an Interlinear Bible is extremely enlightening. I doubt if half the people in Christendom even know what an Interlinear Bible is. I have compared and studied and searched and examined for many years. It is possible to find out which version of all the Bibles is the most accurate.

Even though there are many views on various scriptures, I have wanted to get people's input so that we can hash over things and have an agreeable discussion. As hard as I've tried, it doesn't happen, at least on this forum. I will ask a question and someone will come on and call me names and won't try to discuss the subject I brought up. They'll fling verses at me without trying to reason with me about their point of view. It's quite frustrating. That's why I didn't come here for a few months.


I hear ya ;)

Having debated the classic proof texts of the centuries old Unitarian/Trinitarian debate....I often like to expound on universal truths, essential metaphysics, true philosophical concepts that include the points discussed, but also transcend the particulars and technicalities that can complicate, confuse and divide one from contemplating and appreciating the fundamental unity at the Heart of all. Hence the Shema is central in its attestation of Gods nature and his law (whose primary directive is love). Love is inherently whole in its nature, hence its own momentum is its own fulfillment.

Since YHWH is held to be the Most High Father of spirits, all other beings are naturally relationally under him as offspring (sons), no matter how divine, angelic or human they may be.

One Universal Father IS, all else are the progeny of this ONE. - a Unitarian view is most logical even if you grant a 'Christ figure' some special preeminence or divinity, - that 'Christ' (assume any compound of natures that suit your theology) is still the creation, progeny, offspring, creative expression, extended image of The Universal Father. The Father has many sons and daughters thru-out the cosmos. One can extend this hierarchical processional order thru-out all creation...as creational laws still hold.

Only God is God in his pure incorporeal, infinite, absolute, eternal, ultimate, omnipresent essence that is prior to space, time, form and matter but is ever their source. All sons, of whatever nature, immortal or mortal are his offspring. This is so basic and natural a fact as to go without saying.

God has sons, messengers, prophets.....heed and respect their word, and all will go well with you. Again, pretty straightforward,....no need to make any of his sons, messengers or prophets into GOD ALMIGHTY. Its not only illogical, but unnecessary.
 

KingdomRose

New member
I hear ya ;)

Having debated the classic proof texts of the centuries old Unitarian/Trinitarian debate....I often like to expound on universal truths, essential metaphysics, true philosophical concepts that include the points discussed, but also transcend the particulars and technicalities that can complicate, confuse and divide one from contemplating and appreciating the fundamental unity at the Heart of all. Hence the Shema is central in its attestation of Gods nature and his law (whose primary directive is love). Love is inherently whole in its nature, hence its own momentum is its own fulfillment.

Since YHWH is held to be the Most High Father of spirits, all other beings are naturally relationally under him as offspring (sons), no matter how divine, angelic or human they may be.

One Universal Father IS, all else are the progeny of this ONE. - a Unitarian view is most logical even if you grant a 'Christ figure' some special preeminence or divinity, - that 'Christ' (assume any compound of natures that suit your theology) is still the creation, progeny, offspring, creative expression, extended image of The Universal Father. The Father has many sons and daughters thru-out the cosmos. One can extend this hierarchical processional order thru-out all creation...as creational laws still hold.

Only God is God in his pure incorporeal, infinite, absolute, eternal, ultimate, omnipresent essence that is prior to space, time, form and matter but is ever their source. All sons, of whatever nature, immortal or mortal are his offspring. This is so basic and natural a fact as to go without saying.

God has sons, messengers, prophets.....heed and respect their word, and all will go well with you. Again, pretty straightforward,....no need to make any of his sons, messengers or prophets into GOD ALMIGHTY. Its not only illogical, but unnecessary.

Very nice.

I do believe, though, that Jehovah chose to send Jesus to straighten out the mess that humans got themselves into by rebelling against Him. It seems to be extremely important to Jehovah that we exercise faith in Jesus in order to live everlastingly. (John 3:16)

JWs are having our yearly Memorial celebration on the 31st of March, honoring Jesus' sacrifice, and you are invited.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
The hard truth for free gracers.......

The hard truth for free gracers.......

Very nice.

I do believe, though, that Jehovah chose to send Jesus to straighten out the mess that humans got themselves into by rebelling against Him. It seems to be extremely important to Jehovah that we exercise faith in Jesus in order to live everlastingly. (John 3:16)

JWs are having our yearly Memorial celebration on the 31st of March, honoring Jesus' sacrifice, and you are invited.


Awesome,

I've dialogued with JWs, friends and strangers, so am also familiar with some of the modern day Unitarian denominations, different branches within Protestantism. Each have their peculiar nuances and functional fashion, if you will.

My view on vicarious blood atonement has been well expounded elsewhere, and while JWs have their own emphasis on a 'ransom' concept, I find a blood atonement concept primitive, ineffective, illogical and even unjust, except one interprets such in a symbolic way that is intellectually and spiritually sound. Nothing can replace actual repentance, and no blood from either animal, man or demigod, can magically cleanse a soul, apart from an individual doing the necessary WORK to effect a real transformation within.

Religious concepts, ideals, images, principles, beliefs may assist in the process to facilitate genuine repentance with divine grace and holy spirit empowering, of course. But this concept that someone else can just magically erase all your negative karma (sin) by "dying for you" (via some magical process) is irresponsible, since all must reap what they sow, and make atonement for their own sins as they are able and to the extent they are able. Nothing abrogates self-responsibility, so various 'atonement-concepts' can only go so far.

Nothing substitutes living according to divine law/principle, doing God's will, obeying the spirit of truth, living the Christ-way. Nothing.

Oh, and to reiterate...Jesus does not need to be 'God' for one to benefit from his bestowal of grace, for Jesus gives all the virtue of whatever human and divine nature he posseses and facilitates for us as a mediator on our behalf.

As in all things as well, all opinions, points of view or speculations are subject to change.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Awesome,

I've dialogued with JWs, friends and strangers, so am also familiar with some of the modern day Unitarian denominations, different branches within Protestantism. Each have their peculiar nuances and functional fashion, if you will.

My view on vicarious blood atonement has been well expounded elsewhere, and while JWs have their own emphasis on a 'ransom' concept, I find a blood atonement concept primitive, ineffective, illogical and even unjust, except one interprets such in a symbolic way that is intellectually and spiritually sound. Nothing can replace actual repentance, and no blood from either animal, man or demigod, can magically cleanse a soul, apart from an individual doing the necessary WORK to effect a real transformation within.

Religious concepts, ideals, images, principles, beliefs may assist in the process to facilitate genuine repentance with divine grace and holy spirit empowering, of course. But this concept that someone else can just magically erase all your negative karma (sin) by "dying for you" (via some magical process) is irresponsible, since all must reap what they sow, and make atonement for their own sins as they are able and to the extent they are able. Nothing abrogates self-responsibility, so various 'atonement-concepts' can only go so far.

Nothing substitutes living according to divine law/principle, doing God's will, obeying the spirit of truth, living the Christ-way. Nothing.

Oh, and to reiterate...Jesus does not need to be 'God' for one to benefit from his bestowal of grace, for Jesus gives all the virtue of whatever human and divine nature he posseses and facilitates for us as a mediator on our behalf.

As in all things as well, all opinions, points of view or speculations are subject to change.

Well said, though I have said before that for this discussion I had hoped that people would stick to a discussion of what the Bible says. So many here drift away from what it actually says and add a bunch of stuff that somebody thought up in their head, like the Trinity, hell-fire and the immortal soul. I had hoped to home in on some of these prevarications and have a meaningful, respectful, in-depth discussion, but alas, such a thing is not to be had on these threads.

To briefly comment on your view of blood atonement: I wouldn't have picked it as a solution to anything myself, but according to the Bible, "there can be no forgiveness without the spilling of blood," or words to that effect.

"Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place." (Hebrews 9:22)

So, according to the Bible Christ's blood really does bring about forgiveness for us, providing that we accept what he did and THEN live according to his teaching and example. I agree with you that we must be genuinely repentant, and do the necessary work to make ourselves over (Romans 12:2). This we have to do, no question about it, after accepting Christ's sacrifice in our behalf. We have to CONTINUE on the road to life. (Colossians 1:23) We do reap what we sow, and that includes anyone who says he's "saved." No one is completely saved until the end of the road---either of our lives or of the system of things. (Matt.24:13) So I agree with what you said about self-responsibility. Not many people align themselves with that idea.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
“Stop being afraid, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades” (1:17-18).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top