You and the Admiral were talking about God walking the earth. The crucifixion of Jesus was always part of the personality of God. You probably know the iconography of Yod He Vav He. I would suggest that if God has two legs, that God is Jesus. In fact, even in the garden, He had nail scarred hands.

Ie, the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

OK, you've lost me. I don't see a correlation between this post and your last one.

God didn't walk the earth. Jesus did.

You mentioned the appearance of God in the Old Testament where God walks and talks and meets with people. There is debate about whether that was Jesus. I think there is evidence that it was.

The Bible has a weird sense of time, or no time. Suggesting that the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world seems to mean that the atonement it self would be outside of time, that is, available even to Adam.

YHWH is made up of letters with individual means, like hieroglyphs. One of their meanings is, "Hands Behold, Nails Behold."

Pra, I think it more theologically precise to say that it was the eternal Word or the Son of God that people saw in the OT and not Jesus. Why? Jesus said that no one has seen the Father at any time and yet we know that they saw God. Who was it that they saw? None other than the 2nd person of the trinity. What's the problem with calling Him Jesus? Well, He had not taken on flesh yet as John 1:14 says.

Jesus is the name given to the baby born to the virgin Mary. Jesus is the name given to the God-Man and Savior of the world. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Jesus the man, did not exist in the OT.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/JesChr_index.html

It is important to understand God, Jesus, and Christ, not just in their similarities of being, but also in their differences of being, as well as in respect to time. So that when choosing to use one of those words, it is used in clarity of thought and in the right context.

While God and Jesus may be seen in similar light at a certain point in the past, to speak of God/Jesus as the same being in the present time does not speak truthfully.
The above link takes you to a discussion about the process of Jesus receiving the Christ Impulse and what it means in terms of human evolution.

My reactionary side wants to sort out some of the OT issues. But, I always believe that there is more agreement happening that I usually give credit for.

Let me tell the story a different way and see if it agrees. Man is able to live with God at one time, before corruption. That is indeed a spiritual life. I would argue that it was also a material life, and really a redeemed material life, but we can put that aside. But, man decides to examine evil for himself and compare it to good. The spiritual senses are dulled because man becomes afraid. At the moment that he decides to really know and choose between good and evil, he suddenly is terrified of the possibilities. He immediately understands that avoiding evil (corruption,hardship, death, attack, deception) and embracing good only (blessing, comfort, happiness, provision) is quite beyond him. Being afraid of evil, evil becomes his ruler. Indeed, he is far more physically occupied, because it is now life or death for him.

When nature miraculously (through God) feeds the Israelites or protects them, they start to get that spiritual connection. Abraham and Sarah, being able to conceive in old age had a fleshly desire fulfilled, to bear out your thesis.

I will say that the most intimate connection to God is a bit different, since it is actually times of God presenting as cloud and fire in a tabernacle, or even appearing as a man to Moses, Joshua, Abraham, etc. My guess is that the transfigured Jesus appearing radiant and unnaturally white. Elisha saw a chariot of fire. Elisha saw angelic hosts riding into battle.

But, essentially I think you are correct, that Jesus uses his spiritual force. His perfection, lack of guilt, connection to the father, love for mankind, is what he uses to overcome death, which we consider a natural force, or the law of the jungle. This was Jesus taking it back and refusing to fear and bow to the one the bible calls the god of this world, who brings disease, corruption, death, deception. Adam let him in. Jesus is mankind refusing to fear him, bow to him and allow his reign to continue. Thus, resurrection, the healings, walking on water, etc.

Death has our soul, I guess simply because we don't know how to survive on our own and we fear to sink into disease and death. Jesus teaches that he has had victory over all of those issues. It is interesting that the Bible calls death the last enemy, and an entity that is actually cast into hell. So, death is more like a person or spirit than a process.

Jesus asks why people worry about what they will wear and what they will eat. I think he identifies that with distraction from, as you say, the spiritual reality.

Mostly what we see on the Christian end as being cognizant of spiritual reality is spending time experiencing God, even if it is just meditating on what He is like from a description in the Bible. Hearing from Him happens. People see Him People trust that God will provide and we neednt worry about it. Worrying about staying alive is not conducive.

I am not completely sure that you would agree with me, but I think part of the plan is returning people back of a physical existence where God is the light, the provider, the King and mostly what they are conscious of. Death is gone. Evil is gone. Decay and corruption are gone. Etc. It is putting spiritual and physical back together they way they are supposed to be.




You may have to elaborate. The self part may be where we disagree, in terms of who is doing the development.

Paul tells us to take every thought captive for Christ. To have renewed minds. Different process maybe. Similar idea.

Maybe the different emphasis is on who is doing the developing. For example, the east has Kriya Yoga or other disciplines to wipe out Karma and rebirths by meditating and focusing on undoing the Karma. That sounds pretty much an effort of the self. But, even they have their Babaji's and spiritual beings manifestating. Some of those Babas will channel a God Spirit. Chillingly, they are famous for putting on the Spirit of Cali or Brahma, depending on what they want.

The development you speak of is implied. The Apostles are almost completely clueless during most of the Gospels. Them being slow in the uptake is emphasized again and again. In Acts, the Holy Spirit comes upon them as a rushing wind and tongues of fire and they are really developed from this point on. Not infallible, but Peter suddenly becomes an orator, for example. They started to have a coherent, loving Church rather than squabbling as they sometimes did in the Gospels.

Paul though talks quite a bit about adoption. I think he is suggesting that at some point, physically, we are changed. Our DNA is changed. And I think the Bible has lots to say about DNA and corrupt DNA as part of our bondage. Paul says that in the end, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall be changed and will be like the glorified Jesus. Corrupt flesh will put on incorruption. I think this development is something done by God's power and not our strength or diligence in seeking it.

There is a great deal all along the way about development. Even about mediating and focusing on the spiritual reality. Paul is full of encouragement for people to develop. Maybe it is not that much different.




That could be. Many cultures would probably recognize Jesus for the reasons that you say. Probably the Church does not understand that rumors of Jesus, for lack of a better term, and maybe even core ideas, permeate cultures all over the world. More than a few cultures, however, are full of the satan/death cult at the same time and end up being confused about where Jesus stops and where the devil starts. Quite a few Christians have that problem as well.

It infuriates Christians if you say things that start to suggest that such things and implicitly weaken the idea of the saving confession of the one historical Jesus.

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Fredrock may be freaking at this very moment. I do think that there was one historical moment of incarnation leading to atonement on the cross and resurrection that was critical for all mankind. I really believe that victory was unique and that getting this idea is a rebirth and salvation.

But I also believe that God may communicate saving faith in ways that completely escape the Christian radar. As you say, it is in the cultures of probably all the world. Some say the Leni Lenape learned about Jehova in New Jersey before Christ was born.

Here is the thing though. Christians can have all the head knowledge about the historical Jesus and still not seek Him and dedicate themselves to Him. That heart for Him ends up being a very nonreligious thing, in essence. It is saying to God, I want You. Own me. Or something like that. You hardly care what the traditions are, what the religious practices are. You just want Him.

But, in the same way, culture memories, legends, tugs at the heart, icons, symbols and other things may indeed have their source in the revelation of the one true God. But, like Christianity itself, the question is whether knowing becomes surrender, or seeking, or devotion, or whatever it is by which a human being establishes that relationship. So, having that cultural idea of resurrection, is just having an idea. The implicit question for all of us, now, what are you going to do with it -- are you really open to a relationship?

The Christians really fear that without a good presentation of the Gospel and the Christian program, that people will never really seek a relationship with God and just be before Him, trusting Him to be God in their lives. But, plenty of people have encountered God with no missionary work at all. They just seem to cry out to Him in some manner and the Jesus that people would give their right arm to see meets some ignorant Muslim in a mountain pass in all His glory. I think the Bible is as good as it gets, and really in a class of one, as far as revelation is concerned. But, I would also agree that it is not the only means by which God reveals himself. If man really establishes a relationship with God, I think we needn't worry whether God will bring that believer to the Bible. God can probably take care of that Himself.

"Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." ( Mark 12:29)

"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7)

But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working still, and I am still working.' This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. ( John 5:16-18)

"Whoever hates me hates my Father also." ( John 15:23)

"If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." ( John 10:37-38)

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works." ( John 14:10)

There's just no substitute for the written Word of God.

Every time someone uses these texts to suppose an anti-Trinitarian view of the God head, it causes me to thank God for the grace He has shown me in allowing me to understand what appears to be a mystery to so many.

John 17 may shed some light on the meaning of these verses, as they are about UNITY and not sameness/oneness as you appear to be trying to demonstrate. May the Lord be pleased to lift the veil from your eyes, so that you may know Him fully.

Every time someone uses these texts to suppose an anti-Trinitarian view of the God head, it causes me to thank God for the grace He has shown me in allowing me to understand what appears to be a mystery to so many.

John 17 may shed some light on the meaning of these verses, as they are about UNITY and not sameness/oneness as you appear to be trying to demonstrate. May the Lord be pleased to lift the veil from your eyes, so that you may know Him fully.

Quoting scripture is not cover enough for anyone who would attempt to rob the Son of God of His divine glory. Is that what you are attempting to do?

Call yourself what ever you want, but anyone who would deny that the eternal Word/Son of God has come in the flesh is not born of God. (See 1st John 2)

Jesus makes it clear in John 17 to all who have ears to hear that He was with the Father before the world was, not that He was the Father. The two of them and the Holy Spirit are one in UNITY not in Person. I recognize that this truth is spiritually discerned and cannot be grasped apart from the Holy Spirit's illuminating work, so may the Lord grant you His revelation and understanding.

"Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." ( Mark 12:29)

"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7)

But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working still, and I am still working.' This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. ( John 5:16-18)

"Whoever hates me hates my Father also." ( John 15:23)

"If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." ( John 10:37-38)

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works." ( John 14:10)

There's just no substitute for the written Word of God.

Isn't this offered to support a trinitarian view?

It was a Biblical counter to what Relayer had said in the post immediately before, along with the link to R. Steiner.

What I want you to do is carefully review what I said and the Scriptures I've quoted. Then, I want you to tell me what part of this makes you think I "would attempt to rob the Son of God of His divine glory."

Don't know a great deal about the guy. He has some wisdom and is educated. Sometimes the Christians rush to pronounce as worthless someone who misses the boat (Jesus).

Most of us, maybe all of us, end up being parochial to an extent -- devoted to a particular teacher or group. The ones who say they are preaching the "whole counsel of God" get the guffaws from me. The blessed ones have that particular human tendency attached to a method of salvation. It is better to be "lucky" than good.