Man's body not shaped in the image of God

[Ghada]

Natural man certainly has blood, it IS the Life of the terrestrial flesh. It serves a purpose in this life.

And you're preaching a Christ not come in natural flesh of all men, which means He is not come in the flesh of man.

Only when error is introduced, must the obvious be stated. And yet God still states the obvious, that it is the flesh of man Jesus Christ came in. The same exact flesh and blood of David's loins and seed. (Acts 2) The same flesh and blood of Abraham and his natural seed. (Heb 2) The same naturally mortal flesh and blood of Mary, in whose flesh as the seed of David and Abraham.

There is only one flesh and blood of all men. No exceptions. (Acts 17)

Your Christ was not a man of flesh and blood.

However I do believe some men shall receive a “changed” body.

The resurrection of the dead is not the question here.

Head, trunk, arms, hands, legs, feet, in Gods Image.

In the likeness of Jesus Christ's resurrected body, which is now the image of man, since He came as a man of flesh and blood.

Not a supernatural man with ichor in His veins. The cross of wood was not mixed with Kryptonite.

When a man becomes soul (restored) saved, and spirit (quickened) born of Gods Seed…
Then is a man prepared to become in Gods Likeness.

So, only man's body was created in God's image.

That truly throws out the spiritual nature of man at creation.

 

[Ghada]

2 Corinthians 4:4 "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Really? That's how you respond to an honest challenge from the Bible? You draw the sword for blood? Fine by me.

I quote again: The Bible says plainly that man must change the image of His glorious body, to be made like unto the image of man.

You going to blind yourself to this verse of the Bible it again?

What did Christ display at the transfiguration if not his Glory?

And again, I must quote again: And the fashion of His face was altered: His image was changed. It was no longer that of a man.

Are you like others, that do not answer honest challenges?

Saying His glorious transformation was still seen unchanged image of man, denies the verse saying otherwise.

But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

The only ones that saw as men, was the two with Him.

And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Only after His transfiguration does the Bible say they saw Jesus as a man again.

Your objection over the image of man being an Idol is without merit.

Misstating my objection is sloppy at best. I always try to be as accurate with what others teach about the Bible, as I am with the Bible itself. This is how we respect one another in an honest debate.

Where did I say the image of man is an idol? The Bible says changing the image of God into the likeness of man, is the idolatry.

You might have had a point of contention if the image of man were formed by man, but it was formed by God.

Once again you misstate my position. The image of man formed by man is not idolatry. Only an image of man formed as the image of God is the idolatry of pagan/Christian anthropomorphism.

They made images of man for many gods. You do for one. They said the gods had men and women's shape and likeness. You say the one true God does. No difference at all, except in numbers.

Two simple questions:

1. When you see a man or woman, whether living, in stone, or in the mirror, do you see the image and shape of God?

2. Do you see God, when you look in the mirror? (This is not a mocking question. Some say Jesus was speaking of Himself bodily, when He said they saw the Father, when they had seen Him.) So, when you see the body of a member of the body of Christ, do you see God?

 

[Taken]

So, in the context of the blood being pure, you think we purify our blood, when we purify our soul and spirit.

So, in FACT, I neither implied or said such thing.

 

[Taken]

So, Jesus fulfilled the law from the womb by coming into the world with 'pure' blood in His body?

That is a bizarre teaching.

 

[Taken]

And you're preaching a Christ not come in natural flesh of all men, which means He is not come in the flesh of man.

Your continual attempts to reword what I have said is a gross misrepresentation and is an unflattering reflection on you.

 

[lforrest]

Really? That's how you respond to an honest challenge from the Bible? You draw the sword for blood? Fine by me.

Standing up to false teaching with the tools at my disposal.

Romans 1:23 "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Not sure how this applies to Jesus who would not see corruption: Psalm 16:10

Also by the context this is as a history lesson on idolatry like worshiping physical objects.

 

[Ghada]

That is a bizarre teaching.

True. It's not really the topic at hand. It's a 'pure' blood teaching. As though men can have pure or tainted blood, rather than just the one natural blood of all men, that God says we all have. (Acts 17)

And though it may sound strange, it's only a companion doctrine to some Christians who believe there is sinful vs sinless flesh.

It basically says that Adam at first, and Jesus for life were not human beings of flesh and blood like all men and women.

I don't believe in a Christ for me, that is not a person of flesh and blood like me. I'm not looking for an unnatural superhero to try and walk, run, or fly with.

My Christ was a man of the same flesh and one blood I have, and was tempted like me, but without sinning like I have.

 

[Ghada]

So, in FACT, I neither implied or said such thing.

Well, ff we can't actually be like Him, of PURE blood, then what's the point of commanding to purify ourselves like He is, or PURE blood?

And you must excuse the logical inference I make from your stuff. In the context of your 'pure' blooded Christ, you quote the commandment to purify ourselves like your Christ. That would certainly have to include the PURE blood of your Christ, that you are preaching most vehemently preaching about.

Sometimes people don't realize they are teaching certain things, because they don't connect their own dots.

In any case, since (as you say) being pure like your Christ of pure blood, has nothing to do with the blood itself, then what's the whole point about a 'pure' blooded Christ?

I mean, since there it has no practical purpose nor affect on our lives to be pure like Him, in the most important thing about Him: His PURE blood. Then what good is it?

Does it just sound good? is it just something specially unique and different to say?

For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

In any case, whether your PURE blooded Christ has any practical affect on our lives or not, I'm not interested.

I'll continue to believe and follow my own Christ and Lord, that had the same ol' natural flesh and blood as the rest of us human beings on earth. At least in the flesh He's one of us, being made of the seed of David and Abraham after the flesh.

I'm not interested in some superhero with an unnatural super-body, and PURE immortal ichor-blood in His veins. (Just my take on a 'PURE' blooded Christ theology)

As the Bible says, there are many Christs and gospels being preached, so we don't have to accept any or all of them. I'll pass on yours. I like mine better. I can actually be just as pure as Him in all things like Him.

 

[Ghada]

Your continual attempts to reword what I have said is a gross misrepresentation and is an unflattering reflection on you.

Once again, you are not connecting your own dots, or not sufficiently clarifying specifics. I only draw normal reasonable conclusions.

When someone tells me their Christ has come with 'pure' blood in the flesh, that no other man has on earth, then that means His blood wasn't natural like all men.

Are you saying that your PURE blooded Christ, that is different from all men, and (As you state) no other man can have, is also the natural blood that all men have?

That certainly sounds unnatural to me, but rather more supernatural. I mean, it's not like men haven't already taught theologies of men born of gods, that have supernatural bodies different from the normal natural bodies all other men have. That's what made them so special and set apart from all other men.

And you clearly join in by saying the PURE blood of your Christ, that is not what other men naturally have, is exactly what makes Him so specially set apart to be a Christ in the first place.

You at least see and allow for the rational comparisons people like me can make, right? I know something of theological. mystical, and mythical religions of man in pretty good detail. And so, naturally I make comparisons between them, as well as those of today.

 

[Taken]

True. It's not really the topic at hand. It's a 'pure' blood teaching. As though men can have pure or tainted blood, rather than just the one natural blood of all men, that God says we all have. (Acts 17)

And though it may sound strange, it's only a companion doctrine to some Christians who believe there is sinful vs sinless flesh.

It basically says that Adam at first, and Jesus for life were not human beings of flesh and blood like all men and women.

I don't believe in a Christ for me, that is not a person of flesh and blood like me. I'm not looking for an unnatural superhero to try and walk, run, or fly with.

My Christ was a man of the same flesh and one blood I have, and was tempted like me, but without sinning like I have.

BLOOD IS the Life of a Human BODY.
God Requires the Life of Man.
The man can willingly OR NOT, promise his LIFE TO GOD.

Regardless IF a man “GIVES” his LIFE to God, the mans LIFE WILL END/DIE.

The BLOOD of every Human’s BODY IS Tainted, Corrupt, Sin, not Pure, IS IN a sinful Body.

What is SO AWESOME about a man willingly GIVING CORRUPT BLOOD OF HIS LIFE AS A SIN OFFERING TO GOD? ZIP!
Sort of like thinking garbage is a wonderful gift to willingly give to God!

Every Natural Born Human BODY, is born IN SIN.
The SIN every Natural Born Human is born IN, IS not heartfullly In Belief.

A man WHO heartfullly BELIEVES, and willingly gives HIS BLOOD (bodily) LIFE to God….HIS BLOOD IS WASHED, purified, Acceptable unto God, as the man’s BODILY LIFE’S CLEANSED BLOOD Offering.

Cleansed by, through, of Jesus’ PURE, sinless, BLOOD.

A man has freewill to CHOOSE, “IF” he wants to ACCEPT or REJECT Gods Offering.

Accept, and that mans BLOOD LIFE shall be made cleansed, and Accepted by God.

Reject, and that mans. BLOOD LIFE shall NOT be made cleansed, and NOT Accepted by God.

I Accepted Gods Offering. I gave my VOW, my heartful Word of Promise to willlingly GIVE my Body’s BLOOD LIFE unto the Lord God.
While still ALIVE IN MY FLESH, with my SAME sinful blood running through my veins….THAT SINFUL BLOOD, is already forgiven, IS Covered, via Gods Spirit (which is Light), that even God can not SEE my Forgiven sin. Gods Spirit is IN me, IS KEEPING my Allegiance and Promise to Him, SECURE, that NO POWER can trump, supersede and undo Gods Works IN Me.

It is Gods own Way and Wonderment that IN HIS BOOKS, what SHALL BE MANIFESTED TO MY EYES, IS ALREADY Accounted and Accomplished IN Gods EYES.

It is me Calling myself SAV-ED, BORN AGAIN, without SEEING the manifestation with human Eyes.

It is God Calling things that ARE NOT (manifested to a mans Eyes), as those they were.

I will still go through the process of physical death…However I am already Divided unto to God. I am already Accounted a new creature and Separated unto to God.

Rom 4:
[17] (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

And the word PURE, is simply the understanding of having NEVER had SIN, or SINNED.

ALL men have SIN and ALL men have SINNED.
A FEW men shall have FORGIVEN and COVERED Sin, and BE ACCOUNTED saved, quickened, and worthy, whole (body, soul, spirit) thus Converted and Sealed and Claimed (Redeemed) By the Lord God.

No, human men DO NOT HAVE PURE BLOOD. And a NEW manifested creature will have NO BLOOD.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

True. It's not really the topic at hand. It's a 'pure' blood teaching. As though men can have pure or tainted blood, rather than just the one natural blood of all men, that God says we all have. (Acts 17)

And though it may sound strange, it's only a companion doctrine to some Christians who believe there is sinful vs sinless flesh.

It basically says that Adam at first, and Jesus for life were not human beings of flesh and blood like all men and women.

I don't believe in a Christ for me, that is not a person of flesh and blood like me. I'm not looking for an unnatural superhero to try and walk, run, or fly with.

My Christ was a man of the same flesh and one blood I have, and was tempted like me, but without sinning like I have.

Have to tend animals…back later.

 

[Taken]

True. It's not really the topic at hand. It's a 'pure' blood teaching. As though men can have pure or tainted blood, rather than just the one natural blood of all men, that God says we all have. (Acts 17)

And though it may sound strange, it's only a companion doctrine to some Christians who believe there is sinful vs sinless flesh.

It basically says that Adam at first, and Jesus for life were not human beings of flesh and blood like all men and women.

I don't believe in a Christ for me, that is not a person of flesh and blood like me. I'm not looking for an unnatural superhero to try and walk, run, or fly with.

My Christ was a man of the same flesh and one blood I have, and was tempted like me, but without sinning like I have.

No man has pure, untainted, sinless Blood.
Gods BODY does not have BLOOD!
Nor will a Risen in Glory man’s body have BLOOD.

God Prepared Jesus’ BODY, to LOOK LIKE A HUMAN MAN, Have BLOOD, To eat, sleep, experience the hardships a human man experiences, experience injustice, cruelty men heap upon one another, and WANT to not experience those things, YET willingly DID and SHOWED MEN, through it all one KEEPING their Faith, IS POSSIBLE WHEN GOD IS with them.

If it is a CHRIST you desire that is in YOUR HUMAN LIKENESS, having been born IN SIN, having committed SIN, that is your prerogative. That IS NOT The Christ Jesus God Offered to the world.

 

[Taken]

True. It's not really the topic at hand. It's a 'pure' blood teaching. As though men can have pure or tainted blood, rather than just the one natural blood of all men, that God says we all have. (Acts 17)

And though it may sound strange, it's only a companion doctrine to some Christians who believe there is sinful vs sinless flesh.

It basically says that Adam at first, and Jesus for life were not human beings of flesh and blood like all men and women.

I don't believe in a Christ for me, that is not a person of flesh and blood like me. I'm not looking for an unnatural superhero to try and walk, run, or fly with.

My Christ was a man of the same flesh and one blood I have, and was tempted like me, but without sinning like I have.

You want PURE Blood? NOW?
Already told you, HOW and WHEN and WHY that occurs…for some.
It is not while you are alive in your flesh body.

Tempting? Do you understand Tempting?

A TEMPTER, attempts (try’s) to convince an other to listen to him, consider his words, his idea, his suggestion, even his offering…

The One Listening is BEING TEMPTED, by the mere fact the TEMPTER is directly speaking to him.

From there…The ONE being TEMPTED, decides…
To continue listening to him…
To CONSIDER his words, his ideas, his suggestions, his offerings…

Did Jesus LISTEN to Satan? Yes
IS that a TEMPTER, Tempting? Yes

Did Jesus CONSIDER accepting Satans words, ideas, suggestions, offerings? No

So, IN FACT what DID JESUS DO, when a TEMPTER TEMPTED Him?
Fall for the Temptation? No.
Jesus IN FACT (paraphrasing), told Satan to GET BEHIND HIM….or buzz off.

WHAT does Get BEHIND Jesus mean?
He Leads, You Follow, His word, His ideas, His suggestions, His offering….
Don’t want to….? Then buzz off, get away, you are not going to LEAD “me”. (Jesus or anyone who is Following Jesus).

Jesus gave a first hand EXAMPLE of how to deal with a TEMPTER.

You think human men do not routinely have evil spirits and wicked men constantly TRYING to TEMPT them? To Follow THEM?
Of course they do and they can Reject, Consider or jump on board and follow them.

Freewill.

 

[Taken]

Once again, you are not connecting your own dots, or not sufficiently clarifying specifics. I only draw normal reasonable conclusions.

When someone tells me their Christ has come with 'pure' blood in the flesh, that no other man has on earth, then that means His blood wasn't natural like all men.

Are you saying that your PURE blooded Christ, that is different from all men, and (As you state) no other man can have, is also the natural blood that all men have?

That certainly sounds unnatural to me, but rather more supernatural. I mean, it's not like men haven't already taught theologies of men born of gods, that have supernatural bodies different from the normal natural bodies all other men have. That's what made them so special and set apart from all other men.

And you clearly join in by saying the PURE blood of your Christ, that is not what other men naturally have, is exactly what makes Him so specially set apart to be a Christ in the first place.

You at least see and allow for the rational comparisons people like me can make, right? I know something of theological. mystical, and mythical religions of man in pretty good detail. And so, naturally I make comparisons between them, as well as those of today.

I can NOT understand FOR you.

You are trying to connect the dots pertaining to Spiritual things, according to your logical mind.

God is Spirit. His gift offerings and His changes, IN a man ARE Spiritual.

What Logical thinking MIND, believes God Puts a NEW Heart in a man, Puts His SEED in a mans new Heart, Puts His Spirit IN that mans new Heart, Saves a mans soul From Death, Births a mans spirit from natural (that can die), to supernatural that can never die?

None of that, being those UNSEEN works of God…Makes sense to a Logical thinking MIND, who must SEE to Believe!

Man has never SEEN God, SEEN His Spirit, SEEN His Soul. Man has never SEEN their own spirit, their own soul.

What men CAN SEE, IS the Reflection of Gods works and a mans works, be they wicked, underhanded or righteous.

And one of the FIRST and to this day reminder of that IS:
The SUN and the MOON.
The SUN is constant LIGHT.
The MOON has NO Light of its own.
The MOON ONLY appears to the human eye to HAVE LIGHT, WHEN the SUN is shinning on the MOON, and man sees the Reflection of the SUNS LIGHT upon the moon.

It’s a constant reminder, parallel of the SUN’s LIGHT shinning then not UPON the MOON
and the SON’S LIGHT shinning then not UPON People.

 

[Ghada]

Standing up to false teaching with the tools at my disposal.

It only helps if the teaching is proven false. Not just disagreed with. Normally I reserve this to end any more debating.

Romans 1:23 "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Not sure how this applies to Jesus who would not see corruption: Psalm 16:10

Unfortunately, once again you veer from the specific challenge. No one is speaking of Jesus' dead body not corrupting, but of the shape of our bodies.

1. The subject is if man created int he image of God includes the physical body and shape.

2. The verse says man must change God's image, in order be in the likeness of man's body.

3. Bible idolatry is not making the image of man, nor of beasts and creepers. It's making the image of man, etc... as being that of God's image.

And so: Is it idolatry to make an image of man (or a beast or creeping thing), and say it is the image of God?

Also by the context this is as a history lesson on idolatry like worshiping physical objects.

Like worshipping physical objects of men, beasts, and creepers, as being the image of God Himself.

 

[Ghada]

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This is the Bible's defining verse on exactly what idolatry is, when it comes to physical images vs God's image.

It teaches three specific things. Idolatry is making any image of a natural creature created by God, as being the image of God. Also, the image of God must be changed from His own into that of a naturally made creature, in order to do so.

The 3rd teaching of it shows the source of man's idolatry about our own physical image.

By including any image of a natural creature, it makes the image of man no better than the image of any other of God's creatures on earth. Afterall, are we not as ugly to wildebeests, as they are to us?

The verse is saying that according to the flesh, no shape of any natural creature created by God is any better or worse in the eyes of the immortal God.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

The heart of man's idolatry, that beasts do not share in, is that our natural bodies are somehow more 'god-like' than the bodies of other natural creatures, that God has created by Christ equally for His good pleasure.

God sees both man and wildebeests alike after the flesh: Natural and mortal. No better than grass and dust.

The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

There is no distinction made between the natural flesh of man and of wildebeests. Therefore, the idolatry of man is to believe our shape is that of God, rather than the wildebeest.

However, we see from the verse that any such shape being made in the image of God, is idolatrous.

The only reason God can talk with man, and man can talk with God, is because God does indeed specially make man's heart and spirit in His own image.

And that is the reason Christ is come in the likeness of man, rather than of the widlebeest.

The question remains: Can any person make the physical likeness of any man or woman, and say that is the image of God?

That is the exact definition of pagan idolatry.

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Some have limited such idolatry to man's likeness alone, and others have included any and all natural living creatures. And we see here, that any and all of it is idolatry to Him.

To the true and immortal God, man saying his physical likeness is the spittin' image of God, is no different than comparing His shape and likeness to that of the beasts and creeping things, that He has created naturally and bodily on earth.

 

[Ghada]

Apparently it has escaped you that the common method of God is not first "plainness of speech", but mysterious enough to be rejected and the cause of the killing of the prophets.

Seriously? The prophets were killed for being too 'mysterious'? For 'perplexing' the people with mystery? How mysterious is it to tell them that have cast the law behind their backs, and the Lord's vengeance will cast them out for it??

I admit you're foggy way of writing gets me consternated, but I'm not going to kill you for it. However, I do demand you get to a plain point sometime. That way you won't need to keep coming back and telling how I just don't 'get it'.

Methinks you overrate mysterious writing, as something that shows 'deep revelation'.

You also misunderstand. The order of the day is not "plainness of speech" common to the natural man and the ways and language of this world, i.e. common sense, but what would appear to be foolishness only discerned by the Spirit.

Once again. You think by purposely obscure writing, you display some hidden knowledge, that others are not privy too. And remain non-privy because we're not into your obscure manner of writing.

Paul says we speak with great plainness. because we have nothing to hide, nor to make pretenses about.

The natural man not discerning the things of the Spirit, simply means he don't believe in no soul, spirit, nor God.

See how plain that is? But how can a person believe or not believe in anything, when someone never gets to the point? or his point is up there among the stars, and not down here on good ol' earth.

So what then, should I give you the actual truth in nonactual terms that you man understand,

Non actual terms?? I completely understand in the beginning the Word was with God, and was God.

Try being as actual as that, ok?

or should I expect rather that if you do not it is because your eyes have not been opened to it..

I have quit trying to have eyes open to your mysteries. Which never fit with the words of the Bible as written. There's always some mysterious twist to it.

I always endeavor to teach the plain Bible the plain way, and always endeavor to understand others teaching plainly.

I am done with your mystry charade. If you can't talk plain down here on my level, then go talk to the clouds and the stars.

Cloudcuckooland comes to mind. (Although it was a satirical portrayal of Socrates' style of debate, and not intended as an accurate one. Socrates spoke so plainly, that they hated him like a prophet too)

.just as history will attest of prior generations? "History is the proof"...and each will come to the knowledge of the truth in this same way.

I have read enough of your stuff, to know that you think every man will be given enough chances in his time, to repent at some time of his own time, so that no man ever fails to repent unto eternal condemnation.

I've deciphered that much. But I'm through with it. It took too long to get much. If you can't just say something as it is, it's because you know once you do, all the pseudo-mystery is uncovered to show something not to be taken seriously.

So yes, I may seem mysterious to you,

You ARE mysterious to me.

but your being smug and rejecting...

Because I know you are mysterious on purpose. It's pretentious and insulting to the intelligence of any serious Bible student.

There are philosophers, metaphysicists, and conspiracy theorists who love that sort of talk. Not me.

Your idea that I am the one offering conjecture, is not the measure of any proof, except what you do not understand and have rejected.

This of course is the main problem in dealing with your cosmos. You say someone is only conjecturing without showing how. And then deny your conjecturing, that some is only conjecturing.

The definition of conjecture, is theory without factual proof. It's opinion only. You're elevated attitude is obvious: anything not agreeing with you, can only be opinion, not true doctrine of the Bible.

So, I would like to hear any proofs and reasons from the Bible for disagreements. In plain language. If you can't come back down to my woeful level of conversation, then alas and oh well.

Until you unwrap yourself of your Merlin garb, I'm not interested any more.

 

[ScottA]

Seriously? The prophets were killed for being too 'mysterious'? For 'perplexing' the people with mystery? How mysterious is it to tell them that have cast the law behind their backs, and the Lord's vengeance will cast them out for it??

I admit you're foggy way of writing gets me consternated, but I'm not going to kill you for it. However, I do demand you get to a plain point sometime. That way you won't need to keep coming back and telling how I just don't 'get it'.

Methinks you overrate mysterious writing, as something that shows 'deep revelation'.

Once again. You think by purposely obscure writing, you display some hidden knowledge, that others are not privy too. And remain non-privy because we're not into your obscure manner of writing.

Paul says we speak with great plainness. because we have nothing to hide, nor to make pretenses about.

The natural man not discerning the things of the Spirit, simply means he don't believe in no soul, spirit, nor God.

See how plain that is? But how can a person believe or not believe in anything, when someone never gets to the point? or his point is up there among the stars, and not down here on good ol' earth.



Non actual terms?? I completely understand in the beginning the Word was with God, and was God.

Try being as actual as that, ok?

I have quit trying to have eyes open to your mysteries. Which never fit with the words of the Bible as written. There's always some mysterious twist to it.

I always endeavor to teach the plain Bible the plain way, and always endeavor to understand others teaching plainly.

I am done with your mystry charade. If you can't talk plain down here on my level, then go talk to the clouds and the stars.

Cloudcuckooland comes to mind. (Although it was a satirical portrayal of Socrates' style of debate, and not intended as an accurate one. Socrates spoke so plainly, that they hated him like a prophet too)


I have read enough of your stuff, to know that you think every man will be given enough chances in his time, to repent at some time of his own time, so that no man ever fails to repent unto eternal condemnation.

I've deciphered that much. But I'm through with it. It took too long to get much. If you can't just say something as it is, it's because you know once you do, all the pseudo-mystery is uncovered to show something not to be taken seriously.




You ARE mysterious to me.


Because I know you are mysterious on purpose. It's pretentious and insulting to the intelligence of any serious Bible student.

There are philosophers, metaphysicists, and conspiracy theorists who love that sort of talk. Not me.


This of course is the main problem in dealing with your cosmos. You say someone is only conjecturing without showing how. And then deny your conjecturing, that some is only conjecturing.

The definition of conjecture, is theory without factual proof. It's opinion only. You're elevated attitude is obvious: anything not agreeing with you, can only be opinion, not true doctrine of the Bible.

So, I would like to hear any proofs and reasons from the Bible for disagreements. In plain language. If you can't come back down to my woeful level of conversation, then alas and oh well.

Until you unwrap yourself of your Merlin garb, I'm not interested any more.

"Mystery" is indeed the correct word.

Revelation 10:7
but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets.

It is straight talk that is now mysterious. It always has been--not because it is, but because it is foreign to you. You say you understand "in the beginning the Word was with God, and was God", and you probably even understand how one does not actually reenter their mother's womb to be born again of the spirit of God. But now I tell you simply what is written and you think it mysterious.

Did Jesus explain how one is born again in words Nicodemus would understand? No, but it was Nicodemus who needed to change his own way of thinking.

Now I have told you the truth and I have told you the problem also.

 

[Ghada]

OKAY..

Let us assume that God has no body... which means no body parts... and that Moses went up the mountain and
saw something.

Who is saying God has no immortal body? Is your belief about man's body being made in God's image, so fixed in concrete, that God cannot not have an immortal body at all, if not shaped like man's?

There is no argument about God having an immortal body and shape. Jesus confirms the immortal God does have His own shape, which Jesus says no man has seen. That would include Moses thousands of years before.

What do you think he saw?

Did he see God's shape?

Let's look at the Bible record.

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee;

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

What He saw was the backside of God's goodness and glory. Nothing about the shape of it.

The Bible says Moses and God spoke face to face, but we know Moses did not see His face, nor the shape of it.

And if God... at least at that time did not have... or project any kind of a body part...

Once again, the immortal God having body parts is not the issue. It's the shape of them in question.

why did He need to walk past Moses stating

17The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” 18Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” 21Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; 22and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23“Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

WHAT DID GOD MEAN BY THIS THAT HE TOLD MOSES???????????????????????????????????

That he would show His goodness and glory. Nothing is said of His shape. The words shape or likeness aren't even written, and that is the subject at hand.

Let's look at more of the record.

Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

We don't see Moses even asking to see His shape and likeness in the first place. At this point, it's fair to ask where that idea even came from. That too is a mistaken tradition.

Moses asks God to show Moses His way. Which is His way of going, and going with him and the children of Israel through the wilderness.

God's promises is to go with them in His presence, not His shapen body. Nor does He promise to show Moses any of His shape. And Moses didn't even ask to see any.

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

God showed Moses His way of goodness and glory in declaring it with power. And Moses did not see any shape at all, but rather the scene is one of the the brightness of His glory and goodness, causing Moses to be quickly humbled and hasting to bow down.

The conclusion is simple. In all the research, there is not one hint of God ever showing His immortal shape and likeness bodily to any man, nor has He written of it in Bible revelation and prophecy.

It's up to you to show anywhere the Bible specifically reveals His immortal image and shape is like that of a man. Or to show it in shape and likeness.

Otherwise, all we have is a carnal reading of Gen 1, that leads straight to the Bible's specific definition of idolatry, that pertains to His immortal image being like the physical shape of man, beast, or creeping thing.

AND

what in the world are

Colossians 3:1Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

Romans 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Acts 7:56 and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Once again. God having a body is not the argument. And the likeness of the resurrected man Christ Jesus, is now that of a man sitting on the right hand of God.

And that is only because the Word was made flesh in the likeness of men. Therefore, To say that the Father also has the likeness of a man sitting on the left hand of the Son, is to say the Father has also come in the flesh and likeness of man.

WIKI The Session of Christ or heavenly session is a Christian doctrine stating that Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven—the word "session" is an archaic noun meaning "sitting".

When and where does the Bible say God sat down on His throne?

We read of the resurrected man Christ Jesus sitting down on God's right hand. We never read of the Father sitting down on His throne.

In any case, as with Moses, it says nothing of the shape of the Father's immortal backside. We can however agree the Son's is the shape of His resurrected man's body.

So.... What is it that you think Moses saw?

Did he see God's shape?

Moses say the goodness and glory of the God of Israel's immortality, before He was made flesh in the likeness of man.

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

He did not change His image into that of a man. He put away His glorious and good likeness as seen by Moses without shape, and instead took on Himself the same natural shape and image of all men.

Man has his own physical shape, shaped by the Lord, and God has His own immortal shape, shaped by no god nor man.

Saying His shape as that of man, is man making his shape to be that of God.

Now I have one question for you, after answering several of yours:

What is it that you think Moses saw? God's shape?

 

[Ghada]

But now I tell you simply what is written and you think it mysterious.

C'mon. This is getting too tiresome. I understand what is written. It's your it's your vague ideas about it, that I'm tired of trying to understand.

Did Jesus explain how one is born again in words Nicodemus would understand?

He understood the words, that his carnal mind could not wrap around spiritually.

I don't understand your ideas about the Bible expressed in mysterious lingo.

Now I have told you the truth and I have told you the problem also.

Nope. You still say I am only conjecturing in the topic at hand. Until you show plainly how, then your charge is useless.

Show how I am only offering opinion, without any Bible basis, or I'll call it quits.

All you're doing now is trying to convince me your mysterious allusions to the Bible, is somehow legit teaching, and so I should keep hearing you out, until I 'get it'. I used to indulge you. Now, I'm telling you it's over with for me.

( I see you also don't disagree that you teach all men in their own time, will eventually repent unto salvation and resurrection from the dead. I would call it the gospel of men repenting in their own good time, and God will allow it timelessly, even if it takes forever.)