The Nature of Christ

[Susan]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?

[JCA]

According to God, everyone has Christs commandments written in their Hearts and Minds, even if you do not know of Christ or God.

That is why even if you do not ever here the Gospel, you shall be judged by your deeds, as Revelations tells us.

So I would have to say that even though you may not read the Bible, or come to know Christ personally, you have that little inner 'conscience', the commands of Christ, within you, and if you understand it correctly, and follow it, you stand a chance.

Whether or not you can understand the disposition of Christ through this, I cannot say..

JMHO though :teeth:

Love and Peace

JCA

[Jaltus]

Is it possible to know Christ without reading the Bible?

Yes, but you will not know Him well. It would be like hearing about someone, wanting to get to know them, but going out of your way to never meet them or read anything written by them. It would be a strange, stilted relationship.

It is also quite possible to talk about Christ without using the Bible, but then you are relegated to talking about personal feelings.

[colbarttl]

Why wouldn't you want to read the Bible? Curious.

[GrayPilgrim]

"Natural Theology" is just such an endeavor. Unfortunately it generally has resulted in the wholesale rejection of Christianity as without special revelation it is not possible the atonement and the character of God.

GP

[freeontheinside]

It is also quite possible to talk about Christ without using the Bible, but then you are relegated to talking about personal feelings.

I would have to agree with you Jaltus. To not use the Bible means that peresonal feelings is all that we have to rely upon and this can be bad.


"Natural Theology" is just such an endeavor. Unfortunately it generally has resulted in the wholesale rejection of Christianity as without special revelation it is not possible the atonement and the character of God.

I would also have to agree with this as well. Natural Theology as it is called is a natural bust when it comes to knowing who Jesus really is:bonk:

Just thought I would chime in here.. :yipee:

[Gatsby]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?


You mean I think, what does Christ think, what are his emotions? Is this what you mean about his 'disposition'. If it is, then no, you dont need to read the Bible, in fact you would be able to answer that question yourself far better by going within yourself and inquiring there. But as you haven't read the Bible, maybe some other relgious literature or something, you dont say, anyway the only dispostion the Christ has is LOVE. This IS the CHRIST in a nutshell.

He is not a person but Spirit and he is with you always here and hereafter.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?

Qualities like forgiveness, patience, humility, love would seem to just be common sense. But you need he Bible to understand how they coincide with his kingship and judgment roles.

[Heterodoxus]

A couple of questions... [1] Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible? [2] Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?
Doubtful to both questions. People, especially Christians, who don't or won't read their Bibles may know of "Jesus, who is called Christ"* from what they've been programmed to believe by their churches, or from the subjective opinions of other like-minded believers.

IMO, if they don't read their Bibles, the won't be able to discern for themselves the differences in the "disposition" (moods, attitudes, character, and particularly the nature) of:
the OT Biblegod (YHVH-Jehovah) and the godlike spirit Jesus often referred to as "Father"; or,
the differences between Jesus and that Messiah-type promised by YHVH-Jehovah who's supposed to compel, and enforce, Judeo-Christianity upon the world whether the people like it or not.__________________

* MT 1:16, emp. on "called" (boasted, described, or otherwise so identified, rightly or wrongly) is mine.

[Gatsby]

Do you really think God would enforce anyone to do anything.

We have free will and I think that would mean that God wouldn't send anyone to enforce anything because that would negate free will.

Regards
Gatsby

[Heterodoxus]

Do you really think God would enforce anyone to do anything.Is not the ultimate goal of the Rapture to gather up all of the like-minded believers and to eventually compel Judeo-Christianity on those people left behind? And, if enforcing one version of the big Three religions upon the "infidels" isn't the purpose and plan of the Christian Messiah or Islamic Mahdi, what else could it be?
As to whether or not the God of Abraham and Mohammed "would enforce anyone to do anything," what I think is unimportant. Perhaps you might ask a Christian or Islamic fundy?

We have free will and I think that would mean that God wouldn't send anyone to enforce anything because that would negate free will.As I understand it there is, ultimately, no free will in any of the Big Three religions; only the will of their God, IAW which they've been programmed to believe and act.
Wanna go to heaven? Do as God demands.
How should you treat your fellow man, do it like God decrees.

And so it goes . . . . .:ahem:

[Gatsby]

My answer to your first part is no.

The answer to the second paragraph is that there is free will, it is free will to chose any religion you want, or none if that suits better, In other words there is free wil but many fail to use it.

Regards
Gatsby

[John Goddard]

As I understand it there is, ultimately, no free will in any of the Big Three religions; only the will of their God, IAW which they've been programmed to believe and act.

Wanna go to heaven? Do as God demands.

A theist position has more free will with God than without God here, we can choose between eternal life or eternal death. While the atheist position generally leaves no choice, only death.

So the atheist position discourages free will on this point.

[barnasha]

Doubtful to both questions. People, especially Christians, who don't or won't read their Bibles may know of "Jesus, who is called Christ"* from what they've been programmed to believe by their churches, or from the subjective opinions of other like-minded believers.

IMO, if they don't read their Bibles, the won't be able to discern for themselves the differences in the "disposition" (moods, attitudes, character, and particularly the nature) of:
the OT Biblegod (YHVH-Jehovah) and the godlike spirit Jesus often referred to as "Father"; or,
the differences between Jesus and that Messiah-type promised by YHVH-Jehovah who's supposed to compel, and enforce, Judeo-Christianity upon the world whether the people like it or not.__________________

* MT 1:16, emp. on "called" (boasted, described, or otherwise so identified, rightly or wrongly) is mine.

Yahweh is a deity of peoples who came well before Jesus came into being.
And, Jesus was a human.

neither are moods.

[Gatsby]

A theist position has more free will with God than without God here, we can choose between eternal life or eternal death. While the atheist position generally leaves no choice, only death.

So the atheist position discourages free will on this point.

The theist and the atheist have purely another form of beleive. It is a stated opinion which does not mean that it is true. Thing is they seem to beleive that this means they have no belief system, yet they have.

One doesn't choose between eternal life or eternal death for their is no death. Life, which you are, is eternal as God is eternal.

The nature of Christ is Love and this love underpins everything, you could say it is the glue that binds everyone together no matter what faith they profess to have or not have as the case may be.

Regards
Gatsby:smile:

[John Goddard]

One doesn't choose between eternal life or eternal death for their is no death. Life, which you are, is eternal as God is eternal.

I just go by the Bible.

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[Heterodoxus]

Yahweh is a deity of peoples who came well before Jesus came into being.Is he? Don't orthodox Xians believe YHVH=Jesus? And, don''t they believe it was Jesus who spoke to Moses and Abraham? If that is true, then Jesus apparently came into being before the time that YHVH/Jesus confederated with the ancient Israelites.

Jesus was a human.Not according to some believers in both the early church and now.

neither are moods.The OT is replete with examples of the moods of Biblegod. And both the ancient Israelites and Jesus, the latter seeming to be at least human in part, were controlled to some extent by their beliefs, emotions, and moods, just like we are.

[SpiritWoman]

Impossible. Yeshua's actions speak louder than the apostles words and deeds. Yeshua's simple commandments were ignored after his rise to Glory.

Even the apostles couldn't follow simple commandments from thier teacher in his absense. Read the actions of Yeshua, read his simple commandments. Compare the deeds of the apostles in Acts. You will see what I mean. Then ask yourself, if they couldn't obey what Yeshua taught, how would we without at least knowing his deeds and his commandments?

Peace
SpiritWoman

[Gatsby]

Yes, your right. The apostles didn't understand what Jesus was teaching them and hence how can the Bible be a book of Truth. It cant be can it?

I beleive there is truth in the Bible but the Bible must be understood in a spiritual context and not a litteral one.

Regards
Gatsby

[Heterodoxus]

.... how can the Bible be a book of Truth. It cant be can it?No, it can't, and it isn't. The KJV is essentially a copy of a copy of a copy, and its content is very far removed from the original sayings and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Modern translations purportedly based on the KJV are exactly that: modern translations of a third-hand copy of what was supposedly contained in the Bible's source documents, and which was initially approved by the King of England in opposition to the Pope of his time.

Sadly, the original source documents have been forever lost to the sands of time, so we will never know with any degree of certainty what Jesus actually said or did. The best any person or church organization could do, in the days of Jerome's Vulgate or the KJV translations of the firsthand or secondhand copies, respectively, was to translate and propagate their version of the Bible IAW their personal or group's religio-politico agenda, based upon Pagan-Judaic-Hellenic beliefs or misconceptions adapted into early Christianity, to reflect what they thought Jesus said or did.

Church dogma and tradition being what they are, the vast majority of Christian Bible readers can't, don't, or won't understand that the Bible they hold in their hands is not a divine book written by the "fin-guh of gaw-duh." Rather, it is a compilation of documents, many of them incomplete and missing many important words or complete sections, which were regarded as "sacred" by a relatively small group of very early, like-minded, "fathers" and other compensated scholars within the Church of Rome.

I may be off topic here, so let me quickly add: the Bible, as we have and know it, is no more divine in its nature than was the man Jesus in his.

I beleive there is truth in the Bible but the Bible must be understood in a spiritual context and not a litteral one.Again, agreed, and to which I add: understood not only in a spiritual context, as you correctly suggest, but in the historical knowledge and revealing light of who compiled it, and why!

[SpiritWoman]

Bravo Gatsby. I'm with you on that. And even if you do take it literally, take it how it reads.

If Yeshua commanded it or was quoted by others, supposedly, there isn't much to fear accept if you reject the Holy Spirit Within. The part of all of us that is "The Creator".

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Most dogma are rules made up by the apostles and prophets based again on thier personal human experience and hangups. People....followers...ones who, the minute he died, in my mind, reads like a bunch of politicos on a campaign. Sheesh, if history teaches right they even fought with one another. And most who preach it still do. Power hunger is after all based on greed.

So, take it literally if you must, but have an open mind, read it like it's a book you found at the library, and see the follies of the apostles and prophets and the first church of christianity.

Yeshua taught love, freedom, racial and sexual equality, social responsibility and behavior towards others, forgiveness, healing.
How to be a True Human Being. Something most humans in those days knew nothing about. He brought the sword alright and struck down ideologies of a jealous god figure who imparts war on some children and playing favorites with others. Power and greed, theft through conquest all based on a propoganda set on fear of the one who supposedly created us and play us like a game of Risk.

The apostles and prophets? Back to tribalism, segregation, power grabbing, war for dominion, condemnation of nature, critical judgement, Specail treatment through bigotry, superstition based on the very evils Jeshua sought to cut out of thier hearts and spirits.

What a very sad story, if taken literally.

Sounds alot like what we live today, don't you think?

Peace
SpiritWoman

[Bernie]

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?
Probably not, but why would those joined in a common bond wish to separate them?


Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?
Yes. Muslim, atheist, Mormon, Hindu, Baha'i, etc. often recognize Him by His other name: Truth.

[Gatsby]

Bravo Gatsby. I'm with you on that. And even if you do take it literally, take it how it reads.

If Yeshua commanded it or was quoted by others, supposedly, there isn't much to fear accept if you reject the Holy Spirit Within. The part of all of us that is "The Creator".

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Most dogma are rules made up by the apostles and prophets based again on thier personal human experience and hangups. People....followers...ones who, the minute he died, in my mind, reads like a bunch of politicos on a campaign. Sheesh, if history teaches right they even fought with one another. And most who preach it still do. Power hunger is after all based on greed.

So, take it literally if you must, but have an open mind, read it like it's a book you found at the library, and see the follies of the apostles and prophets and the first church of christianity.

Yeshua taught love, freedom, racial and sexual equality, social responsibility and behavior towards others, forgiveness, healing.
How to be a True Human Being. Something most humans in those days knew nothing about. He brought the sword alright and struck down ideologies of a jealous god figure who imparts war on some children and playing favorites with others. Power and greed, theft through conquest all based on a propoganda set on fear of the one who supposedly created us and play us like a game of Risk.

The apostles and prophets? Back to tribalism, segregation, power grabbing, war for dominion, condemnation of nature, critical judgement, Specail treatment through bigotry, superstition based on the very evils Jeshua sought to cut out of thier hearts and spirits.

What a very sad story, if taken literally.

Sounds alot like what we live today, don't you think?

Peace
SpiritWoman


Hi SpiritWoman, yes, I agree totally with you. Today is not any different in mindset. Full of coveting what our neighbours have and full of greed for material things and I include the churches in this too. Only the technologies have moved on but no much else.

The wolves in shee's clothing have spread their tentacles far and wide over the centuries and isn't it amazing how much they posses in the way of material gains. Gold, silver, buildings, cash etc the list could go on. They have preyed on the weak minded and not allowed them to think for theirselves bringing in the old worn out fear mongering scare stories about a God who is wrathfull, jealous and as you say shows 'favouritism for some and not for other's. Is this a God whom one can love? I doubt it very much. But when you know God Is Love and that is All God Is and his creations, including us are born out of Love.....well then to love him we certainly can.

But the mind of many have crystalised within dogma and creed and until then day comes where they open and spring clean their minds, then they wont move forward towards the love that is awaiting them in abundance.

Now this is indeed sad.

Regards
Gatsby

[Gatsby]

Probably not, but why would those joined in a common bond wish to separate them?


Yes. Muslim, atheist, Mormon, Hindu, Baha'i, etc. often recognize Him by His other name: Truth.


Yes, of course the Christ is known b other names, hence the Bible is not exclusive to the Christ.
but try getting the orthodoxy to accept this, they wont because it is not in their interest is it?

Regards
Gatsby

[barnasha]

Not according to some believers in both the early church and now.


their irrationality is not made any more rational by the number of people who are irrational.

[Bernie]

Yes, of course the Christ is known b other names, hence the Bible is not exclusive to the Christ.
but try getting the orthodoxy to accept this, they wont because it is not in their interest is it?
No, unfortunately many Christians don't yet understand Christ gives Himself to the rest of the world, too.

[Gatsby]

No, unfortunately many Christians don't yet understand Christ gives Himself to the rest of the world, too.

There was no such religion as Christianity when Jesus was alive and he wasn't here to promote a new one, this much he said himself, but this statement fell on deaf ears.

Which means in other's words that the purpose of Jesus being the pinnacle of Love on Earth via Christ has been completely overlooked by what is now called orthodox and also it has become no more than a sentiment. Just take Xmas as a example.

Regards
Gatsby

[smaneck]

Qualities like forgiveness, patience, humility, love would seem to just be common sense. But you need he Bible to understand how they coincide with his kingship and judgment roles.

Putting them together is not unique to Christianity.

[smaneck]

Is not the ultimate goal of the Rapture to gather up all of the like-minded believers and to eventually compel Judeo-Christianity on those people left behind? And, if enforcing one version of the big Three religions upon the "infidels" isn't the purpose and plan of the Christian Messiah or Islamic Mahdi, what else could it be?

To usher in a Golden Age of peace and understanding?

2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

That doesn't sound like something that is going to happen by compulsion. And Qur'an is pretty explicit "Let there be no compulsion in religion." That's a verse that is repeated at least three times.


As to whether or not the God of Abraham and Mohammed "would enforce anyone to do anything," what I think is unimportant. Perhaps you might ask a Christian or Islamic fundy?

Even the most fundamentalist Muslims will generally concede that you can not force people into Islam. The purpose of a jihad is not impose ones religion on others but rather to establish a just government where people are free to be Muslims.

[
B][SIZE=3]As I understand it there is, ultimately, no free will in any of the Big Three religions; only the will of their God, IAW which they've been programmed to believe and act.

The issue of predestination vs. free will is hotly debated in Christianity and Islam. I'm not sure about Judaism.


Wanna go to heaven? Do as God demands.
How should you treat your fellow man, do it like God decrees.
[SIZE=3]
And so it goes . . . .

Now submitting to God's will is another issue entirely.

[smaneck]

IRead the actions of Yeshua, read his simple commandments. Compare the deeds of the apostles in Acts.

How about giving us some examples?

[smaneck]

[QUOTE=Heterodoxus;2600216] Modern translations purportedly based on the KJV are exactly that: modern translations of a third-hand copy of what was supposedly contained in the Bible's source documents, and which was initially approved by the King of England in opposition to the Pope of his time.

Fortunately there are not many modern translations of the KJV. It's rather silly to translate an English translation, don't you think? Most mdoern translations go back to the Greek and Hebrew. A good translation will also provide information regarding any variations in the ancient manuscripts which do exist.

[smaneck]

Most dogma are rules made up by the apostles and prophets based again on thier personal human experience and hangups. <snip>
What a very sad story, if taken literally.


And what makes you think your own interpretations will be less based on your own personal experiences and hangups? I'm reminded of what Albert Schweitzer so admirably illustrated in "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" namely that those who sought to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith turned out to create a Christ in their own image.

[Heterodoxus]

Originally posted by Heterodoxus: Is not the ultimate goal of the Rapture to gather up all of the like-minded believers and to eventually compel Judeo-Christianity on those people left behind? And, if enforcing one version of the big Three religions upon the "infidels" isn't the purpose and plan of the Christian Messiah or Islamic Mahdi, what else could it be?

To usher in a Golden Age of peace and understanding?According to the terms and conditions of who or which religion?

2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.Whose house? The big 3 "Lord," YeHoVaH-Jehovah-Allah, of Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam?

2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come [imperative command?] ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.Again, whose mountain? Whose house? Whose ways? Whose paths? Law from where? Word of who, and from where?

2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.And what if the people in the targeted nations don't acknowledge or agree to be judged or rebuked IAW YeHoVaH-Jehovah-Allah's supposedly divine judgment?
And what better way to a control people than to, unilaterally and unconditionally, disarm them and abrogate their constitutional Second Amendment or equivalent? Human nature being what it is, every dictator knows that people are less likely to resist or fight back when they're controlled by fear and religion.
Nations controlled by the laws and dictates of either Moses or Mohammed are likely to not war with other. At least, not until the Christian and other heretics and infidels are exterminated en masse.

:eek:

That doesn't sound like something that is going to happen by compulsion ... if the targeted population agrees to/with purportedly divine law and mind control. If they don't, then that divine judgment and retribution will effect a murderous, faith-oriented, toll upon all infidels (see, e.g., the "Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day").

And Qur'an is pretty explicit "Let there be no compulsion in religion." That's a verse that is repeated at least three times.Perhaps they should follow their own advice and heal themselves before taking their message any further into a relluctant world?
And moderate Muslims will begin to enforce this order upon extremist Muslims . . . . . when?

Even the most fundamentalist Muslims will generally concede that you can not force people into Islam.This statement appears to be little more than Islamic rhetoric or proganda.

The purpose of a jihad is not impose ones religion on others but rather to establish a just government where people are free to be Muslims... or perish? In Islamic and Judaistic terms, isn't just and government a term akin to an oxymoron?

Now submitting to God's will is another issue entirely.Is that what they're calling indoctrination, brainwashing, or subliminal programming "in the name of God" these days? :lol:

[smaneck]

[

Whose house? The big 3 "Lord," YeHoVaH-Jehovah-Allah, of Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam?

Maybe this one. :wink:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:TerracesBenGurion2.jpg

[
COLOR=black]And what better way to a control people than to, unilaterally and unconditionally, disarm them and abrogate their constitutional Second Amendment or equivalent?

Only Americans have second amendment. For most countries the right to bear arms went out with feudalism.

[
COLOR=black]Nations controlled by the laws and dictates of either Moses or Mohammed are likely to not war with other. At least, not until the Christian and other heretics and infidels are exterminated en masse.[/COLOR]

What planet are you living on? Last I heard they were having trouble with one another.

[
COLOR=black] ... if the targeted population agrees to/with purportedly divine law and mind control. If they don't, then that divine judgment and retribution will effect a murderous, faith-oriented, toll upon all infidels (see, e.g., the "Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day").[/COLOR]

Surely you don't imagine that was what St. Bartholomew's massacre was all about?


And moderate Muslims will begin to enforce this order upon extremist Muslims . . . . . when?

Most of them try. Terrorists are a bigger threat to most Muslim governments than they are to us.

[Heterodoxus]

Heterodoxus: Nations controlled by the laws and dictates of either Moses or Mohammed are likely to not war with other. At least, not until the Christian and other heretics and infidels are exterminated en masse.
What planet are you living on? Last I heard they were having trouble with one another.OK, make that nations controlled by the laws and dictates of either Moses or Mohammed, respectively, are less likely not to war between themselves.

Heterodoxus: ... divine judgment and retribution will effect a murderous, faith-oriented, toll upon all infidels (see, e.g., the "Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day").

Surely you don't imagine that was what St. Bartholomew's massacre was all about?What I "imagine" is irrelevant. OTOH, existing historical records of that event (a precursor to the French Revolution) which are maintained within various archives in France, Spain, England, and Russia, indicate that the majority of the angry participants were Catholic laity terminating, "with extreme prejudice," the supposedly heretical Protestant Hugenots (French Calvinists) "in the name of God" and king, and with the blessings of their Pope. Several fresco and other Pope-authorized artwork depict it.

What other action do you imagine it was?

[smaneck]

[the majority of the angry participants were Catholic laity terminating, "with extreme prejudice," the supposedly heretical Protestant Hugenots (French Calvinists) "in the name of God" and king, and with the blessings of their Pope. [/FONT]Several fresco and other Pope-authorized artwork depict it.

What other action do you imagine it was?

It seems to me it was largely a consequence of political machinations within the French nobility.

[Heterodoxus]

It seems to me it was largely a consequence of political machinations within the French nobility.This is getting way off topic, but political considerations were apparently only minutely involved. The throne of France doesn't appear to have been in danger at that time; at least, not from the massacred Huguenots. Catherine de Medici, the mother of the King of France arranged a fake wedding between her daughter, Margot de Valois, and Henri de Navarre who was a Protestant leader. The marriage was publicly conducted on August 17 and was attended by the Cardinal of Bourbon.

Four days later with a prearranged signal at midnight the homes of Protestants were entered. Admiral de Coligny, the chief military leader of the Huguenots, was stabbed by an assassin, in the chest with a sword in his own bedroom. Then they threw him out of a window into the street, cut off his head and sent it to the pope. Then they cut off his arms and private members, dragged him through the streets for three days, and hung him by the heels outside the city.

For many days, they killed as many Protestants as they could, starting with the upper class. In the first 3 days 10,000 were killed and their bodies thrown into the river. The bloodbath spread from Paris to other parts of the country and in a week over 100,000 Protestants were killed across the kingdom. Some priests, holding up a crucifix in one hand, and a dagger in the other, ran to the chiefs of the murderers, and strongly exhorted them to spare neither relatives nor friends

Many who gave great sums of money for their ransom were immediately slain; and several towns, which were under the king's promise of protection and safety, were cut off as soon as they delivered themselves up, on those promises, to his generals or captains.

Pope Gregory XIII had a medallion created to celebrate the bloody event. A Catholic web site states that the medallion was not created to celebrate the massacre. It was created to celebrate the fact that the king was not killed. I would believe that except for other historical evidences show that the medallion, which was supposed to honor the king of France, didn't even mention either his name or France.

The design on the back of the medallion clearly shows an angel with a sword and a cross in the act of slaughtering people. And it says: UGONOTTORUM STRAGES 1572 (Huguenots Slaughtered 1572).
The front of the medallion honors Pope Gregory XIII. Both sides of it do not mention the king. It mentions the slaughter and has a picture of the slaughter. The massacres on St. Bartholomew's Day are also painted in the royal saloon of the Vatican at Rome, with the Latin inscription Pontifex Coligny necem probat (The pope approves of Coligny's death).

At Rome, the joy was so great, that they appointed a day of high festival, and a jubilee, with great indulgence to all who kept it and showed any expression of gladness they could devise! And the man who first carried the news received 1000 crowns from the cardinal of Lorraine for his ungodly message. In France, the king also commanded the day to be kept with every demonstration of joy, believing that the whole race of Huguenots was now extinct.

This info is easily confirmed in several reliable online encyclopedic references. There are more and better ref's offline in, e.g., major university libraries. Also see, e.g.:


St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre)


If I could post images here, I'd show the commemorative medallion authorized by Pope Gregory XIII. It can, however, be seen at several online sites. The above link also shows it and other Vatican-approved artwork.

[SpiritWoman]

Smaneck,

In response to giving you examples;

The whole book of the Acts of the apostles. Read it. I won't get into the back and forth over the meaning of this verse and that, it is the actions of the players in a story and then the outcome of the whole of the story. I never cheated in a book report so why start with the bible. The apostles, to me, acted like they forgot every single thing that Yeshua taught. And they most certainly made up rules as they went along and broke many of Yeshua's teaching as well.

Also, my interpretations are just that, along with my personal hangups, thoughts,Spiritual and emotional needs. Exactly what happens when a human being tries to interpret the Creator. An inner mirror of your own soul (Holy Spirit) shines through. The Creator becomes what is personally manefest in ones own mind. Even Albert Schweitzer's. So be it that most are set in dogma for the numbness of mind and love of physical being. This makes for gods of war, prejudice, greed all because a group considers themselves"Chosen". No mystery there.

But one thing I can say is this, Yeshua is a story of a man whose Creator manefest in him as LOVE, COMPASSION, WISDOM, GIVING and the Kindness to FORGIVE. So much so he believed that he died for what he himself experienced in his personal rapture.

The point is you will not know Yeshua, unless you read his story, all of it. What all peoples of the day told of him. Otherwise you may become confused by others interpretations, and yes, Dogma, thus you will never know the true Yeshua.

Isn't that what this topic all about?

Peace
SpiritWoman

[Gatsby]

Smaneck,

In response to giving you examples;

The whole book of the Acts of the apostles. Read it. I won't get into the back and forth over the meaning of this verse and that, it is the actions of the players in a story and then the outcome of the whole of the story. I never cheated in a book report so why start with the bible. The apostles, to me, acted like they forgot every single thing that Yeshua taught. And they most certainly made up rules as they went along and broke many of Yeshua's teaching as well.

Also, my interpretations are just that, along with my personal hangups, thoughts,Spiritual and emotional needs. Exactly what happens when a human being tries to interpret the Creator. An inner mirror of your own soul (Holy Spirit) shines through. The Creator becomes what is personally manefest in ones own mind. Even Albert Schweitzer's. So be it that most are set in dogma for the numbness of mind and love of physical being. This makes for gods of war, prejudice, greed all because a group considers themselves"Chosen". No mystery there.

But one thing I can say is this, Yeshua is a story of a man whose Creator manefest in him as LOVE, COMPASSION, WISDOM, GIVING and the Kindness to FORGIVE. So much so he believed that he died for what he himself experienced in his personal rapture.

The point is you will not know Yeshua, unless you read his story, all of it. What all peoples of the day told of him. Otherwise you may become confused by others interpretations, and yes, Dogma, thus you will never know the true Yeshua.

Isn't that what this topic all about?

Peace
SpiritWoman

Hi Spiritwoman, I agree with all you say here. No dogma or creed can reveal the Creator to us, nor does scrapeing over the past as the previous posts have done. These events are gone, long gone in the mists of time. And what you think deeply about in your mind is what comes to pass It is like trying to live your life through the past. And it cant be done. You litterally are dissapating your spiritual energy and losing your power to it, the past I mean.. Hence we can acknowlege the past but not live in it. We only have Now, there is no other time. Jesus knew that, as most who are spiritualy developed know this also.

Regards
Gatsby

[smaneck]

This is getting way off topic, but political considerations were apparently only minutely involved. The throne of France doesn't appear to have been in danger at that time; at least, not from the massacred Huguenots.

You've left out the role of the Duke of Guise entirely. He was the one behind the political machinations.


In the first 3 days 10,000 were killed and their bodies thrown into the river. The bloodbath spread from Paris to other parts of the country and in a week over 100,000 Protestants were killed across the kingdom.

Most historians would say only a fraction of that number were killed, somewhere between 5,000-30,000.

[Heterodoxus]

You've left out the role of the Duke of Guise entirely. He was the one behind the political machinations.Again, this is off topic, and this will be my final posting on the subject of the Massacre. I didn't mention him because, as this excerpt from one encyclopedia indicates, his political exploits apparently were, prior to 1576, insignificant to the cause of the Massacre:


The Third Duke of Guise

Charles 's nephew Henri de Lorraine, 3d duc de Guise, 1550—88, son of François, fought in the Wars of Religion and cooperated with Catherine de' Medici in planning the massacre of the Huguenots [an extermination of religious rather than political rivals] on Aug. 24, 1572 [the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day]. After the peace of 1576 he formed the Catholic League ..., and King Henry III, although secretly afraid of the League, became its nominal head. After the death of Francis, duke of Alençon and Anjou (1584), Henri de Lorraine revived (1585) the League in opposition to the Protestant Henry of Navarre (later King Henry IV), who had become heir presumptive to the throne. (Source: [I]Yahoo! Reference Encyclopedia; emp. mine)
Most historians would say only a fraction of that number were killed, somewhere between 5,000-30,000.Concerning the Protestant body count and the result of it:


The massacre continued even after a royal order to stop, and it spread from Paris into other sections of France. Massacres continued into October reaching the provinces of Rouen, Lyons, Bourges, Orleans, and Bourdeaux. An estimated 3,000 were killed in Paris, 70,000 in all of France. News of the massacres was welcomed by the Pope and the King of Spain. Protestants, however, were horrified, and the killings rekindled the hatred between Protestants and Catholics and resulted in the resumption of [the Wars of Religion]. (op.cit.; emp. mine)

[Gatsby]

Again, this is off topic, and this will be my final posting on the subject of the Massacre. I didn't mention him because, as this excerpt from one encyclopedia indicates, his political exploits apparently were, prior to 1576, insignificant to the cause of the Massacre:

Concerning the Protestant body count and the result of it:


I think both of you have demonstrated adequately by your posts, that we cant live in the past, nor are these incidents anyway related to the Nature of Christ. They are about as far away from His Nature as you can get. And looking around the world at this time we can see a huge clearing going on by those and for those who cannot hold the Light of the new energy pervading the earth at this time preparing for the Ascension to put it in new age speak.

Regards
Gatsby

[barnasha]

Whose house? The big 3 "Lord," YeHoVaH-Jehovah-Allah, of Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam?


the question to ask is, LORD, Lord, or lord, since all 3 seem to have different meanings but English speakers lump them all together.

The first was a KJV translation of YHVH, whereas the others are translated from different words entirely (e.g. Rabbi)


In the theology of a westerner, it's all "lord" to them though.

[NormATive]

[color=dark-blue]A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Yes, and they often do usually to the detriment of themselves and whatever truth behind the Messiah depiction exists.


Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?

It's not possible to "know" the nature of Christ by reading or not reading the Bible. The Christ or Messiah or Moshiac is an archetype representing a perceived hope in the "salvation" of mankind. There are many versions of messiahs in many cultures in all ages of human history. The Christian Messiah is perhaps the most well known of them, and has had a profound effect on Western culture.

Of course, this begs the question: from what, exactly, does mankind need salvation?

NORM

[Gatsby]

"When the missionaries first came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "let us pray".
We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-- Bishop Desmond Tutu, in Observer, British newspaper, 16 December 1984

Now, why doesn't this surprise me. Thousands of clergy have made a good living, earnt their crust of bread and much more by going here, there and everywhere with Bible in hand.

The real reason is as the above quote!

Regards
Gatsby

[Christa]

Of course, this begs the question: from what, exactly, does mankind need salvation?

NORM

:ponder:

[John Goddard]

Of course, this begs the question: from what, exactly, does mankind need salvation?

Sin and death.

[Gatsby]

Sin and death.

Iam replying to the previous poster as well as you John.

Sin is ignorance of who you are. This is what original sin is. Not knowing your Godself and Oneness with God. Death is but a dropping of the physical clothes that one wears, the material garment of flesh and bone and blood etc. We have more than one body, we have several, the physical is the densest of them all and the slowest in vibration .

So salvation is basically saving ourselves from ourselves, our mortal life in other words.

Why? Because it is not our real self but what is known as the lower self. The illusionary self.

I dont fully expect you to understand that John, but who knows you may understand more than I know about.

Love and Blessings
Gatsby

[JerryChristian]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?
Why would anyone want to when the Bible is the best source of information on this subject? If you read other books and such it is always subject to man's interpretation. The Bible is of no private interpretation. It says what it means and means what it says! Your thoughts?

[John Goddard]

Iam replying to the previous poster as well as you John.

Sin is ignorance of who you are. This is what original sin is. Not knowing your Godself and Oneness with God. Death is but a dropping of the physical clothes that one wears, the material garment of flesh and bone and blood etc. We have more than one body, we have several, the physical is the densest of them all and the slowest in vibration .

So salvation is basically saving ourselves from ourselves, our mortal life in other words.

Why? Because it is not our real self but what is known as the lower self. The illusionary self.

I dont fully expect you to understand that John, but who knows you may understand more than I know about.

Love and Blessings
Gatsby

I tried saving myself from alcohol for years, didn't work. I've been around AA for 25 years, and only when I prayed to God was the desire to drink removed from me, salvation. As well as other things like selfishness, dishonesty, resentment, and fear. It's in my sig.

Those things are examples of sins for me, and the result if I hang onto them or try to tackle them without praying to God will be spiritual death. In other words I'll be a miserable person right here and now.

The Bible transfers that idea to the afterlife as well, on earth as it is in heaven. It's all very simple for me, and I can't really relate to what you are saying or see a practical application of it to make my life better.

All that said, Eve's original sin and ultimately Adam's was trying to play God. It didn't work well for them, and I know for a fact it doesn't work well for me either. So I don't need to change the story to find truth in it.

[NormATive]

Iam replying to the previous poster as well as you John.

Sin is ignorance of who you are. This is what original sin is. Not knowing your Godself and Oneness with God. Death is but a dropping of the physical clothes that one wears, the material garment of flesh and bone and blood etc. We have more than one body, we have several, the physical is the densest of them all and the slowest in vibration .

Hmmm. This is interesting. I've peered through powerful microscopes and often wondered about the "nature" of the material world - including ourselves. There are some molecular particles that move so slowly that other matter can pass between them easily. I actually witnessed this with my own eyes!



So salvation is basically saving ourselves from ourselves, our mortal life in other words.

Right. There is no need for human sacrifice. Only sacrifice our selfishness and live like Jesus taught. This is what he meant by "I will destroy this temple" - he was referring to the selfish ego. And "I will rebuild it" a reference to a new way of thinking.

At least I think that's what you are saying. If so, I concur.

NORM

[NormATive]

I tried saving myself from alcohol for years, didn't work. I've been around AA for 25 years, and only when I prayed to God was the desire to drink removed from me, salvation.

But John, I've been to Nation of Islam meetings where one person after another said precisely the same thing as you just did here. Ditto Jewish or Shintoism or followers of the Dali Llama.

Is their faith legitimate because their version of G-d saved them from alcohol and drugs?

I know where you are coming from, my friend. I came out of several years of drug addiction and can honestly tell you that my faith in Jesus helped pull me out of that lifestyle. But it could have just as easily been Islam or Judaism. In fact, the Jewish faith is what strengthens me now.

The point is that you and I saved ourselves from ourselves and drew upon the very human idea - which I believe was planted by G-d in all of us - that faith in something beyond ourselves is a source of strength to overcome the bad stuff that comes with life.

NORM

[Gatsby]

Hmmm. This is interesting. I've peered through powerful microscopes and often wondered about the "nature" of the material world - including ourselves. There are some molecular particles that move so slowly that other matter can pass between them easily. I actually witnessed this with my own eyes!




Right. There is no need for human sacrifice. Only sacrifice our selfishness and live like Jesus taught. This is what he meant by "I will destroy this temple" - he was referring to the selfish ego. And "I will rebuild it" a reference to a new way of thinking.

At least I think that's what you are saying. If so, I concur.

NORM

Yes, indeed Norm you have understood. The temple that Jesus spoke about was the body, the temple not made with hands. It houses the egoic mind, which is not the God Mind.

Higher vibrations can and do go straight through lower vibrations as you observed.

Many people have had a experience of feeling a 'chill' going through them. They use the saying 'I think someone has walked over my grave'. What has actually happened is that someone from the Spirit side, what is called the afterlife, has, in effect, walked through them in thier bodily space. The souls in the afterlife having higher vibrations than us here on earth.

There is also a biblical saying that the dead are burying the dead, but we have life. That is a saying of Jesus, what text from the Bible Iam not quite sure. Iam not any good at quoting chapter, verse or text. However, what that means is that many on the earth plane of existence (us) are dead to Reality, but those who know who they are, have everlasting life. eg. those who think that God is seperate from them, and that is the majority of the world are in fact spiritually dead because they dont know they are One with God. Those that do have life everlasting. And in due course, all will know the Reality of God regardless of what there current faith is just now.

This will be the new way of thinking that you mention.

Regards
Gatsby

Yes, a new way of thinking. Your spot on.

Regards
Gatsby

[Gatsby]

But John, I've been to Nation of Islam meetings where one person after another said precisely the same thing as you just did here. Ditto Jewish or Shintoism or followers of the Dali Llama.

Is their faith legitimate because their version of G-d saved them from alcohol and drugs?

I know where you are coming from, my friend. I came out of several years of drug addiction and can honestly tell you that my faith in Jesus helped pull me out of that lifestyle. But it could have just as easily been Islam or Judaism. In fact, the Jewish faith is what strengthens me now.

The point is that you and I saved ourselves from ourselves and drew upon the very human idea - which I believe was planted by G-d in all of us - that faith in something beyond ourselves is a source of strength to overcome the bad stuff that comes with life.

NORM

John, what Norm says is correct. You saved yourself from yourself. Now you turned inwards to God for help. You have done the right thing and your faith that God would help and give you the strength needed was proved to be correct also to you.

You haven't sinned, what you have had is a bad habit, and we all have bad habits of one kind or another. Some destroy families like drugs and drink, or habitually violent behaviour to mention a few. With me is smoking ciggies. Not good for me or those around me who also smoke ciggies but it is a habit I need to overcome. It is not a sin, it is a habit as your's was and as Norm's was.

You have succeeded in the task of removing the habit from your life.

If you have any problems then go inwards and commune with God as He will never turn you or anyone away when one asks sincerly of him. Your faith has proved that to you.

Regards
Gatsby

[Ormly]

The Theory of Eternal Sonship Discussed

The word Son in connection with Jesus does not refer to His Deity, but to His humanity. AS GOD, Christ had no beginning, was not begotten, was not the firstborn, was not born, and therefore, was not a Son; but AS MAN HE had a beginning, was begotten, was the first-born of God, w as born, and therefore became the Son of God. If one believed sonship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being. It is plainly stated in Micah 5:2- John 1:1-2; Col. 1:17; Rev. 1:8-18; John 17:5 that He had no beginning AS GOD and that He was as eternal and self-existent as the Father and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, AS MAN it is plainly stated that He had a beginning. Note the following simple statements of Scripture that AS MAN and AS A SON. He did have a beginning, proving sonship refers to humanity and not to Deity.

(1) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.... she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:18-25). This proves that God had a Son at the same time Mary did, and neither had a Son before this. This Son was "Emmanuel .... God with us," but before the second person of the Godhead came to be with us AS MAN, HE could only exist AS GOD. AS GOD the second person of the God head is never called the Son of God, but when He became man by becoming the Son of both Mary and God, He is called "The Son of God."

The only references to His Sonship before He became the Son of Mary and God were in prophecies foretelling this event (Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; Prov. 30:4; Ps. 2:7, 12; Heb. 1:5-6). That He was "The Son of God" and appeared in the fiery furnace as such in Dan. 3 is not stated anywhere. It was the heathen king that said "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God," literally, like a Son of God, as in the margin. In this appearance the being was an angel (Dan. 3:28) and not the second person of the Godhead who later became man and the Son of Mary and God. To this heathen king any being like an angel would be called a Son of God, because he believed in many gods and offspring of gods. He knew nothing of the true God, much less that He would someday have a Son born of a woman.

(2) "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall BE CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD" (Luke 1:31 -35). If God or Mary had a Son before this, when was it born? Certainly this was the first time Mary had a son, for she "brought forth her firstborn son: and called his name JESUS" (Matt. 1:25). This was also the first time God had a Son, for Mary's child is also called God's "first-born" in the same sense He was Mary's "first-born" (Matt. 1:25; Ps. 89:27; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:5-7).

If God had a Son before this, then Jesus is the second-born Son and not "firstborn" and "the only begotten Son" of God, as in John 1:18; 3:16-18, 35-36, and in the passages listed above. Or, if Sonship refers to Deity, then He became God's Son twice; once sometime back in eternity and again when God had a Son by Mary. If He was begotten as God's Son sometime in the eternal past and His Sonship refers to Deity and not to humanity, then who was the mother of this God-Son and when did God have a Son by this other mother? There is no statement in Scripture that Jesus was God's Son from all eternity. If He were, then there still would have to be a time when He became God's Son, and if that took place at a certain time and place, He could not have always been God's Son. Neither would He always have been God, as the Bible declares in Mic. 5:2; John l:1-2; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 1:8).

To solve all these unanswerable questions of speculation, let us believe the simple statements of Scripture that the person we now know as the Son of God and Mary was not always God's Son and Mary's Son, that He was always God and a separate person along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that He became man and the Son of both God and Mary over nineteen hundred years ago for the purpose of redemption, that it was in God's plan that one of the three persons of the Godhead should become man and the Son of the one who became the Father by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that it did not become a reality until it actually took place in Mary about nineteen hundred years ago.

(3) "Unto you is born THIS DAY in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.... when eight days were accomplished for circumcising of the child, his name WAS CALLED JESUS, which was so named by the angel BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB" (Luke 2:11-24).

(4) "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). He was the "Word" and "God" and a member of the Godhead from all eternity, but He was not made flesh until God had a Son by Mary.

(5) "God gave his only begotten Son" is taken to prove that God must have had a Son before He gave Him, but this must be understood in connection with other passages. It is certain that the second person of the Godhead had to become a man and the Son of God and Mary before either God or Mary could have a Son; so God giving His Son must refer to the time of the crucifixion when God gave His Son and the Son gave Himself to redeem man "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

This time is stated to be at the crucifixion, for it was then that the sins of the whole world were atoned for and all men were crucified with Him (Rom.6:4-6; 8:32, Gal. 1:4, Eph. 5:25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24). The time then when God gave His Son that men should believe in Him to be saved was the time He gave Himself to save all men, and not at the time he was born. At the time He was born He did not save the world and could not have done so. He had to grow to manhood to die for men. We also read of God giving Christ the headship of the Church, and this was even after the crucifixion (Eph. 1:20-22).

The birth of Christ was necessary for God to have a Son to give to die for the world later. The purpose of the birth was that He might have a Son to give as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. God did not give Him to die at the time He was born, but gave Him to die when He was a man and after He had been the Son of God and Mary for over thirty-three years. Because God now has a Son, His giving the Son can be spoken of even at birth in the same sense that He was called "Christ," as explained in Point V, 27, above.

(6) "Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:42; Mic. 5:1-2; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-2). The person who was to be God's Son and Christ was to come from God and man; hence, Sonship refers to humanity, not to Deity. AS GOD He could not have been born or brought into existence, but as man He had to be (Acts 13:23; Rom.1:3; 8:3, 28-32; 9:5; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 1:8-11; Col. 1:15; Heb. 2:14-18; 7:14; 10:5-14; 1 John 4:1-6; 1 Pet. 2:24).

(7) It is stated in both Testaments that there was a certain day that God was to have a Son and a certain day in which He did have a Son. "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.... And again, I WILL BE to him a Father, and HE SHALL BE to me a Son.... And again, when he brines in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-6; 5:5-10; 10:5-14- Isa.7:14; 9:6-7). The words Father and Son have exactly the same meaning when used of God as when used of men.

If Sonship refers to Deity then we would have to conclude that there was a certain day when the second person of the Godhead was born and before this day He was not in existence, but this is contrary to all statements in Scripture about Him. Therefore, we must conclude that Sonship refers to humanity and that before His birthday Jesus was God, but He was not man or God's Son and that as God He had no beginning, but as man He did have a beginning. The prophets foretold how God would become a man by being begotten, but not one ever said that a person would become a God by being begotten (Gen. 3:15; 49:10; Deut. 18:15-19; Ps. 2:7; 22:1-22; 40:7; 80:17; 89:19; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-2; 42:1-5; 32:2; 53:1-12; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2-4).

(8) The truth then is this: there were always three distinct and eternal persons unbegotten of each other from all eternity; that only one of these eternal persons of the Deity became a man and the Son of another of these eternal Beings by the power of the third; and that one took the headship part, another took the mediative part, and the third took the part of direct operation in the plan of creation and redemption of all things. It was in the plan of the Trinity to take these respective parts long before the plan began to be worked out.

It was predicted that one of the eternal Beings would become the Father, that one would become the Son, and that the other would take the place of direct operation to bring it about. This is why it was written of a certain day this was done (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-6; 5:5-10; 10:5-14; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7). This plan was not carried out until the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, as in Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:31-35. Paul said in Gal. 4:4-5 that God's Son was "made of a woman, made under the law." According to Heb. 10:5-14 God prepared a body for the second person of the Godhead in which He was to become incarnate, and it was this man that was born of a woman and was called "the Son of God." Hence, Sonship refers to humanity, not to deity. As God the second person of the Trinity had no beginning and was not begotten, but as a man He did have a beginning by being begotten of the Father through the Holy Spirit and through the virgin Mary. There is, therefore, no such doctrine in Scripture as the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ or that He Eras God's Son from all eternity. There is no excuse to teach some theory that is not stated in Scripture, even if it is commonly accepted as orthodox teaching.

There are 15 prophetical statements about God having a Son in the future, born of a woman (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 69:8; 89:27; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1; Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:30-35; 2:26). There are also 15 historical statements in the Bible showing that God did have His first and only begotten Son, born of a woman, and that this took place on a certain day in time and not in eternity past (Matt. 1:18-21; 2:1-6 with Mic. 5:1-2; Luke 2:1-11; John 1:14; Rom.1:3-4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4-5; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-18; Acts 13:33; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:5-6, 2:9-18; 5:5; 7:14). On the other hand, there is no Scripture in the Bible showing that God had a Son throughout all eternity- one begotten before all worlds. Nor is there a Scripture indicating that there never was a time when He did not have a Son, and no passage to prove that Christ was the Son of God before He was born of a virgin as God's only begotten Son. We find nothing in the Bible stating that eternal sonship and eternal generation is true of Jesus Christ. We can prove the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as God without claiming that He was in sonship all that time. We know that He was always God; He had no beginning as God; He was never born, begotten, and never had a mother, as God. He never had a Father God as deity in the ages past, and never became God's Son in any sense until, as predicted and fulfilled in the above Scriptures.

Lifted from Dakes Bible Topics

Note: Item 2 does not say: "Therefore also that "divine" thing which shall be born of thee"

[John Goddard]

The point is that you and I saved ourselves from ourselves and drew upon the very human idea - which I believe was planted by G-d in all of us - that faith in something beyond ourselves is a source of strength to overcome the bad stuff that comes with life.

I had a part in taking initiative to pray, sure. But if prayer to something else saved me when everything else I did without prayer didn't work, then I have to honestly give the credit for saving me to whatever force beyond myself that I was praying to.

In AA since we are non-religious and most concerned with freeing people from alcohol, I tell agnostics who have a problem with any type of deity or being that they can just pray to good forces that they want to direct their lives, like love, honesty, humility, etc. That leaves the door open for them to acknowledge qualities that my God wants us to have, even if they don't accept my God, which I don't foist upon them there. Then if they are meant to find Jesus through that, they will. But the most important thing to start is to clear the fog of alcohol and drugs so they'll have a chance to see anything good at all.

However once they read our Big Book and learn the history of AA, they can't honestly ignore its foundations in the Christian Oxford Group, or the many Christian concepts that inspired that text, like the parable of the Good Samaritan for example.

This in a way is similar to the acceptance of [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]uf by some members of Judaism, where it is permissible to allow Gentile worship of other gods so long as they include the God of Israel in their worship, the idea being that any god is better than no God at all. And, that these other gods may be used as stepping stones to discover the true God of Israel that is unknown to them in the beginning. Which also reflects the position of some deists in accepting a form of Providence without specifically identifying it.

So in that regard, I don't knock your approach to healing. But on a theological level, my discussions will of course run much deeper to ensure that unbelievers in my God see those "stepping stones" as I see them, so they might follow the same path to discover the specific God of the Bible necessary to receive eternal salvation, not simply limited salvation within this lifetime.

[JerryChristian]

no death? "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die" "the wages of sin is death." Are you saying the Bible is in error?

[Christa]

Why would anyone want to when the Bible is the best source of information on this subject? If you read other books and such it is always subject to man's interpretation. The Bible is of no private interpretation. It says what it means and means what it says! Your thoughts?



People who believe in the Bible understand it to be saying many inconsistent things. At least some, and possibly all, of those people are therefore misunderstanding it. Therefore, the Bible does not perfectly convey its message, and therefore it is not inspired by a perfect being.

:eek:

[Christa]

no death? "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die" "the wages of sin is death." Are you saying the Bible is in error?

Common types of metaphors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)

A dead metaphor is one in which the sense of a transferred image is not present. Example: "to grasp a concept" or "to gather what you've understood" Both of these phrases use a physical action as a metaphor for understanding (itself a metaphor), do most visualize the physical action. Dead metaphors, by definition, normally go unnoticed. Some people make a distinction between a "dead metaphor" whose origin most speakers are entirely unaware about (such as "to break the ice"). Others, however, use dead metaphor for both of these concepts, and use it more generally as a way of describing metaphorical cliché.

A dying metaphor is a derogatory term coined by George Orwell in his essay Politics and the English Language. Orwell defines a dying metaphor as a metaphor that isn't dead (dead metaphors are different, as they are treated like ordinary words), but has been worn out and is used because it saves people the trouble of inventing an original phrase for themselves. In short, a cliché. Example: Achilles' heel. Orwell suggests that writers scan their work for such dying forms that they have 'seen regularly before in print' and replace them with alternative language patterns.

[Christa]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?

:yes:

[John Goddard]

no death? "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die" "the wages of sin is death." Are you saying the Bible is in error?

Disregard my PM reply, I found the thread. But now I'm wondering what comment or idea of mine you refer to.

Unrepentant sin of course means death, according to the Bible.

[Gatsby]

no death? "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die" "the wages of sin is death." Are you saying the Bible is in error?

Are you saying the Bible is in error?

Not all of it but your understanding of it is in error


Regards

[Gatsby]

Originally posted by JerryChristian
Why would anyone want to when the Bible is the best source of information on this subject? If you read other books and such it is always subject to man's interpretation. The Bible is of no private interpretation. It says what it means and means what it says! Your thoughts?

Wrong!! The Bible is full of private interpetations. That is common knowledge.

Even the gospels are not correct, that is why they are termed 'according to Mathew or according to Luke etc.

Just thought I would share this knowledge with you,

Regards
Gatsby

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

It is impossible to know the only true Jesus Christ who was sent by the only true God without reading the bible. Not so much the New Testament, but the Old Testament: Genesis 1:1 IN THE beginning. It is that God who is God who comes to earth as The Word made flesh in the person of His own Son, Jesus Christ in John 1:1-1:4 and 1:14-16. This Gospel was ill assembled and what is John 1:14 should have been placed after 1:4 and been 1:5.

Israel is wrong! YHVH is not that same God! His Son did not need to be born from any virgin woman!

No man knows the nature or is capable of knowing the nature of Christ; except those that make up their own imaginary picture of one and turn Him into a god and idol and themselves into antichrists.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the Only True God hast sent of John 17:3
Reverend Carlton

[Gatsby]

Greetings,

It is impossible to know the only true Jesus Christ who was sent by the only true God without reading the bible. Not so much the New Testament, but the Old Testament: Genesis 1:1 IN THE beginning. It is that God who is God who comes to earth as The Word made flesh in the person of His own Son, Jesus Christ in John 1:1-1:4 and 1:14-16. This Gospel was ill assembled and what is John 1:14 should have been placed after 1:4 and been 1:5.

Israel is wrong! YHVH is not that same God! His Son did not need to be born from any virgin woman!

No man knows the nature or is capable of knowing the nature of Christ; except those that make up their own imaginary picture of one and turn Him into a god and idol and themselves into antichrists.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the Only True God hast sent of John 17:3
Reverend Carlton

Sorry Reverend but I completely disagree with you. It is possible to know Jesus.

Man is God materialised. And yet we cant know God as such because God becomes the things he makes. There is much evidence of that is books of wisdom.

I think of you read the works of Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne or Joel Goldsmith and others of that ilk you will find that they know and have experienced the Reality behind what only our mortal senses have to show us.

Dr Murdo was overshadowed by Jesus and gave out to the world the correct teachings of the Bible and the correct meanings also.

The Bible may have been written from memory because the disciples did not understand at first what they were being taught. In fact they may have never quite undestood what they had been taught, although I rather suspect that some of them did understand.
However Jesus was himself overshadowed by the Chris/God to give out his teachings and this overshadowing is still going on today for the benefit of those who sincerely wish to know God/Christ or whatever name you wish to use. Each religion has it's own name for God, that does not matter really as there is only one creator of all there is in all the worlds and univereses known and unknown to us. The name of God to be precise is I AM. This you must already know.

We are going into a new age and new information is given to us at this time to allow us to develop and grow, soul growth in other words. Some may hear these new messages and some may not but as they say, when the student is ready the master will appear.

Regards
Gatsby

[JerryChristian]

There are some who believe that those that will suffer the second death will do so eternally in the lake of fire. And those that believe hell is merely "separation from God" Using The Verse, "death and hell were cast into the lake of fire", I view hell as not being the lake of fire since they are mentioned separately in this verse.

And for Gatsby who seems to embrace necromancy, which is communication with the dead, you should read this verse in the Bible, For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (KJV)

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

gatsby, oh yeah that is right man is God materialized, how silly of me to think otherwise. Well if that is the case tell me this: Why does man need God then; if man is God materialized? It seems that man should have it all taken care of as God materialized.

This is profound and RIDICULOUS! It is early Israel's interpretation of the scriptures which caused this third grade catastrophe. Man is not God materialized. Man does not know "God" good enough if that is what they think. "God" is way to big for any man! "God's Spiritt" is way to big to be in any flesh of any man. "God" Himself had to be made flesh for His Spirit to enter it and didn't need any baptism to do it.

Right now because of primitive beliefs: man thinks that "God" as "the LORD God" formed man out of the ground...well that is saying that "GOD"S IMAGE IS DIRT"! Whether you know it or not. "God's" image is not dirt! To think that an ALL SPEAKING AND ALL POWERFUL CREATOR would stoop to "playing in the mud"??????

You have NO KNOWLEDGE of The Truth or of who the only true "God" is or "Jesus Christ" in that case!

As you say religions all have their own names for "God"; well "God" has only One Name and only He knows it Himself! Man has believed that "God's" name is in the scriptures...well it is not! YHVH is not His name! Jesus is not His name! Allah is not His name! Man has given God these names out of ignorance, but one nation of princes did give "God" a Name and He manifested His Powers of Truth, Goodness and Love when called by it...that Name was al-Lah; which is not the same as Allah! It simply means and is saying: "the One". Allah on the other hand would be rendered "The one"...notice the reduction in authority?

As "God" has only One Name for Himself: "God" has only one name for all religions...THE BEAST!

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

[JerryChristian]

To the great Gatsby: You said,

Dr Murdo was overshadowed by Jesus and gave out to the world the correct teachings of the Bible and the correct meanings also.

What a bunch of garbage. The Bible clearly states that "it is of no private interpretation." And to say Dr. Murdo has the interpretation of the Bible, and he has the correct teachings, is a bunch of baloney. Just because some man claims he can interpret the Bible and offer it's correct teachings which go beyond what the Biible says is hogwash. Read Revelation 22;18 and 19. It talks about those who would add to or take away from what the Bible says.

You are nothing less than an uneducated instigator who tries to disprove the true Bible teachings using what some man says, instead of what the Bible says. If you don't believe the Bible then quit reading it, and by all means quit your ignorant posts.

[JerryChristian]

To the great Gatsby,

Only a man of truly profound ignorance would take the word of any so-called Bible teacher, who claims to have been overshadowed by God to bring teachings the Bible does not have.

You obviously will follow any wind of doctrine. You wouldn't know the truth if it stood right before you. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me."

The Bible also says, "The Holy spirit will guide you to all truth." By placing your faith in unknown, and very in-distinguished writers instead of the Holy Spirit, you will never know the truth. God gave you a road map to tryth. It's called the Bible. To deny the accuracy of Scriptures is to deny God.

The Bible also says, that Jesus is the word. To deny the accuracy of the Word is to deny Jesus.

Matthew 10: 32 & 33 describes this condition.

It says "if you will deny Jesus before men He will deny you before the Father."

Obviously you are a lost soul in need of salvation. And you are trying to preach your false beliefs to believers. That places you in a very dangerous position.

Repent, while there is still time.

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Almost every man believes their interpretation of the bible is correct. Even the Pharisees and Sadducees of Israel believed their interpretation of the scriptures was correct also. If everyone's beliefs and interpretation of the bible and other scriptures are correct; then "God" must be a schizophrenic! It is man's thinking that by way of some "Holy Spirit or GHOST actually" that they have divine interpreting abilities. This is not the case my bretheren and sisteren.

Many men have claimed to interpret that bible correctly, but what if The One who would has come?
What if there are no what ifs?

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton: The World Teacher

[Gatsby]

Greetings,

gatsby, oh yeah that is right man is God materialized, how silly of me to think otherwise. Well if that is the case tell me this: Why does man need God then; if man is God materialized? It seems that man should have it all taken care of as God materialized.

This is profound and RIDICULOUS! It is early Israel's interpretation of the scriptures which caused this third grade catastrophe. Man is not God materialized. Man does not know "God" good enough if that is what they think. "God" is way to big for any man! "God's Spiritt" is way to big to be in any flesh of any man. "God" Himself had to be made flesh for His Spirit to enter it and didn't need any baptism to do it.

Right now because of primitive beliefs: man thinks that "God" as "the LORD God" formed man out of the ground...well that is saying that "GOD"S IMAGE IS DIRT"! Whether you know it or not. "God's" image is not dirt! To think that an ALL SPEAKING AND ALL POWERFUL CREATOR would stoop to "playing in the mud"??????

You have NO KNOWLEDGE of The Truth or of who the only true "God" is or "Jesus Christ" in that case!

As you say religions all have their own names for "God"; well "God" has only One Name and only He knows it Himself! Man has believed that "God's" name is in the scriptures...well it is not! YHVH is not His name! Jesus is not His name! Allah is not His name! Man has given God these names out of ignorance, but one nation of princes did give "God" a Name and He manifested His Powers of Truth, Goodness and Love when called by it...that Name was al-Lah; which is not the same as Allah! It simply means and is saying: "the One". Allah on the other hand would be rendered "The one"...notice the reduction in authority?

As "God" has only One Name for Himself: "God" has only one name for all religions...THE BEAST!

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton


You are not a real reverend for their is no love in you!

By your ignorance you have diminished yourself. To say that God's spirit is too big to fit into any man is very funny indeed. Do you not know that we live and move and have our Being in Him? I take it that you think God must be a peson himself in his own right so to speak. Also, to say God HAD to be made flesh for His spirit to enter, is itself contradictory to what you have just previously said, one of the stupid and ridiculous things I have heard in a long while. God is Spirit and everything and everyone is Spirit.God did not form Himself out or anyone from the ground, I can agree with you there.

Where on earth did you get the idea of God having only one name for all religions and calling it the BEAST. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Go and educate yourself in the laws of Spirit because you are not presently fit to teach anyone. I say this as a Lightworker, if you know what that is. It is said with love and not with judgement for it is in your interest to know the spiritual laws pertaining to all life. The spiritual laws work regardles whether you know them or not, my humble advice to you is go and learn them, then you are in a much stronger position to teach others for at the moment you truly are the blind teaching the blind.

God through Himself created all that has and will be made, by Himself out of Himself. He creates the substance which carry's within itself the blueprint and intellegence to create what is in His Divine Mind. Thoughts become things! We are made in his image and this means we are creators too. This is what it means by saying we are made in his likeness and image. It does NOT mean that God is a Person like us, discinct from us because there can be no seperation between us and God or we wouldn't be here at all. But I digress here. To address the point Man is God materialised I refer you to the writings of Dr Murdo MacDonald Bayne. He has written many books, met many Masters in the Himalayas and learnt the Universal Laws of creation. In one of his books titled Your Silent Partner (Cosmic Consiousness) we have chapter 8 entitled MAN IS GOD MATERIALIZED.

Excerpt as follows:
Man is God materialized! This is a tremendous statement, but when we analyze it to the ultimate we see that it is true. Then the feeling of this great Truth rushes through us and fills us with an energy filled with this truth.

Man is a invisible entity, what we see of him in and through the body is merely the manifestation of the inner man. Mankind is the expression of the Infinate Spiritual Energy - a conscious, spiritual intellectual, etheric materialized energy, individualised in all planes, thus giving to man and woman individuality and personality. It is through this realization the locked up faculties and powers existing in every human being will begin to manifest.
The involved God-Powers now existing in man will spring forth, for in the heart of every living being lies a god - the Cosmic Spirit individualised.

Thereee is more I could quote but wont, because unless all prior conditioning is removed from the mortal mind, then realisation of your Oneness with God will not be forthcoming. You will forever be quoting out of the Bible and believing that this is all you need to do to reach that place within you called heaven.

You are One with God whether you know it or not.

All things deemed supernatural are in fact natural, they are nothing but the workings of the spiritual laws, miracles etc are all the outworkings of spiritual laws and Iam not meaning the ten commandments here.

Regards
Gatsby

[Gatsby]

Greetings,

Almost every man believes their interpretation of the bible is correct. Even the Pharisees and Sadducees of Israel believed their interpretation of the scriptures was correct also. If everyone's beliefs and interpretation of the bible and other scriptures are correct; then "God" must be a schizophrenic! It is man's thinking that by way of some "Holy Spirit or GHOST actually" that they have divine interpreting abilities. This is not the case my bretheren and sisteren.

Many men have claimed to interpret that bible correctly, but what if The One who would has come?
What if there are no what ifs?

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton: The World Teacher

EEK!! world teacher, your not talking about yourself are you, you cant be serious. Are you not willing to learn anything new.

There are so many interpetations of the Bible that's true and none of the orthodox ones are correct.

Regards
Gatsby

[Gatsby]

To the great Gatsby,

Only a man of truly profound ignorance would take the word of any so-called Bible teacher, who claims to have been overshadowed by God to bring teachings the Bible does not have.

You obviously will follow any wind of doctrine. You wouldn't know the truth if it stood right before you. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me."

The Bible also says, "The Holy spirit will guide you to all truth." By placing your faith in unknown, and very in-distinguished writers instead of the Holy Spirit, you will never know the truth. God gave you a road map to tryth. It's called the Bible. To deny the accuracy of Scriptures is to deny God.

The Bible also says, that Jesus is the word. To deny the accuracy of the Word is to deny Jesus.

Matthew 10: 32 & 33 describes this condition.

It says "if you will deny Jesus before men He will deny you before the Father."

Obviously you are a lost soul in need of salvation. And you are trying to preach your false beliefs to believers. That places you in a very dangerous position.

Repent, while there is still time.


Jerry, when you have read any of these books, then you can genuinely comment on them. I have at least read the Bible. Now the man your talking about has healed many, thousand in fact of all sorts of diseases, he knew more of the Bible than you or me or any church leader and more crucially he lived it with humility and love something that is sorely missing in you it seems.

Regards
Gatsby

[EphremHagos]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?

As an intermediate source of knowledge, leading to a final, direct and personal revelation from God, the Bible is only good for discussion on the nature of Christ , but not for knowing Him firsthand and personally as "Son of the living God", i.e., immortal! This is in accordance with the terms of the "new covenant" signed, sealed and delivered at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff; John 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37).

[EphremHagos]

A couple of questions....

Is it possible for a Christian to discuss the nature (disposition) of Christ without using the Bible?

Is it possible to know the nature (disposition) of Christ without reading the Bible?

As an intermediate source of knowledge, leading to a final, direct and personal revelation from God, the Bible is only good for discussion on the nature of Christ , but not for knowing Him firsthand and personally as "Son of the living God", i.e., immortal! This is in accordance with the terms of the "new covenant" signed, sealed and delivered at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29 ff; John 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37).