Does Jesus have a child?

[Timmy]

Does Jesus have a child?

[Esaias]

He's got lots of them.

[Esaias]

He's also been divorced, cheated on, run out of town... AND he's rich, he's the head of a worldwide government, he is a military strategist par excellence, the only true pope and patriarch, and THE master economist.

He's also judge and lawgiver, high priest and GOD ALMIGHTY. And he's coming to put down all rebellion and overthrow all rebels and execute judgement against all criminals.

[mfblume]

Yep, me!

Revelation 1:11-13 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; (13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

That is Jesus.


Revelation 21:6-7 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. (7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

[Michael The Disciple]

I also am the son of Jesus!

[Michael The Disciple]

He's also been divorced, cheated on, run out of town... AND he's rich, he's the head of a worldwide government, he is a military strategist par excellence, the only true pope and patriarch, and THE master economist.

He's also judge and lawgiver, high priest and GOD ALMIGHTY. And he's coming to put down all rebellion and overthrow all rebels and execute judgement against all criminals.

Well said.:highfive

[Timmy]

Is Jesus one of Jesus's sons?

[mfblume]

Is Jesus one of Jesus's sons?

In one sense, yes. In another sense, no.

[mfblume]

The whole problem i see with all these questions is that people are throwing what is a dilemma to human beings due to our limited faculties, but is not a limitation for God who is GOD. God is not limited to the status of a creature that can only do certain things and no more.

It always amazes me how this is such an overlooked issue.

To us, being our own child is impossible! It can only be an imagined situation from an unhealthy mind that cannot reason properly. And in reality it is not real at all. And that's why people give all these answers that God is schizoid if oneness is true. lol

Our human personhood does not have the ability to manifest in a genuine manner as a human being as though it was a SON to us.... we become our own son. But God is not restricted like that. God is not a human being. lol. FOR THE TENTH TIME God is not a human being with restrictions. He manifested as a human being but his starting point was GOD, unlike us who cannot manifest as another human because we can only but start to do anything from the beginning of being human, and that simply disallows for us to do what God can do.

So, God, who can do what we cannot in untold millions of areas, manifested Himself as the SON OF GOD. From THAT perspective of HIS PERSON, the person of His son being one with that of God, HE IS HIS OWN SON. But from the perspective of his existence as God and the manifestation of His person as a human being, God is not a human being as per GODHOOD any more than the humanity of the Son of God is deity. Humanity is not deity. It never was nor ever can be. Humanity and Godhood are forever distinct. So, in regards to His human manifestation contrasted from His Deity, He is not His own Son. But from the perspective of the common person in GOD (who can do far more than we can), and SON OF GOD, He IS His own Son.

It's like saying that if I can turn myself into a table and a chair at the same time, the table is not the chair, but in the sense that I turned myself into both of those things, and the subject is ME, then the table is the chair.

[mfblume]

Jesus is not a human being manifesting as another human being. He is GOD manifesting as a human being. That's quite a different picture, isn't it? And so we think of a human being as his own son and laugh at the thought of God becoming manifested in flesh as His Son.

People...

[MarkBelosa]

I hear ya, Brother Blume! God is not restricted. :-)

I like the table and chair illustration btw.

[mfblume]

I hear ya, Brother Blume! God is not restricted. :-)

I like the table and chair illustration btw.

:thumbsup

[Aquila]

The whole problem i see with all these questions is that people are throwing what is a dilemma to human beings due to our limited faculties, but is not a limitation for God who is GOD. God is not limited to the status of a creature that can only do certain things and no more.

It always amazes me how this is such an overlooked issue.

To us, being our own child is impossible! It can only be an imagined situation from an unhealthy mind that cannot reason properly. And in reality it is not real at all. And that's why people give all these answers that God is schizoid if oneness is true. lol

Our human personhood does not have the ability to manifest in a genuine manner as a human being as though it was a SON to us.... we become our own son. But God is not restricted like that. God is not a human being. lol. FOR THE TENTH TIME God is not a human being with restrictions. He manifested as a human being but his starting point was GOD, unlike us who cannot manifest as another human because we can only but start to do anything from the beginning of being human, and that simply disallows for us to do what God can do.

So, God, who can do what we cannot in untold millions of areas, manifested Himself as the SON OF GOD. From THAT perspective of HIS PERSON, the person of His son being one with that of God, HE IS HIS OWN SON. But from the perspective of his existence as God and the manifestation of His person as a human being, God is not a human being as per GODHOOD any more than the humanity of the Son of God is deity. Humanity is not deity. It never was nor ever can be. Humanity and Godhood are forever distinct. So, in regards to His human manifestation contrasted from His Deity, He is not His own Son. But from the perspective of the common person in GOD (who can do far more than we can), and SON OF GOD, He IS His own Son.

It's like saying that if I can turn myself into a table and a chair at the same time, the table is not the chair, but in the sense that I turned myself into both of those things, and the subject is ME, then the table is the chair.

Just because we can conceive of God doing a thing...it doesn't mean He did it. God could be manifest in every major religion too. Some claim the same divine essence in Jesus is found in Buddha.

My point is...instead of imagining what God could do...let's take Christ's own description of Oneness into account.

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

If I say that the Father and the man, Christ Jesus, are one... That He is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him... That this oneness of being is so complete that to see one is to see the other, to hear one, is to hear the other... That it is the Father who dwelleth in the very being of the man, Christ Jesus, that has done Christ's works...Why isn't that sufficient? Why imaginatively postulate how Jesus is His own Son? It's illogical and unbiblical. It's like arguing that with God three divine persons can be one God. Again, unbiblical and illogical. By this logic let's add the Seven Spirits of God in the Revelation and claim they are distinct divine persons. It's not an issue of what we can imagine God doing to reconcile Scripture with our fanciful theories. It's about believing in Christ's own testimony about His union with the Father and even being willing to use His own words to describe this oneness.

[mfblume]

Just because we can conceive of God doing a thing...it doesn't mean He did it. God could be manifest in every major religion too. Some claim the same divine essence in Jesus is found in Buddha.

My point is...instead of imagining what God could do...let's take Christ's own description of Oneness into account.

Of course we take what the bible said about One God, and not a whim of our imagination. The word PERSON was in existence in the Greek as we find in Hebrews and elsewhere. But my point is that the bible never said Jesus was a PERSON distinct from the Father as a PERSON. Never. So why demand it is the case?

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

But that is NOT a description of the Oneness in regards to the Godhead. Yes, there is a DIFFERENT Oneness of God and His Son like a man and a wife being one. I agree with you here. But when it comes to Godhead theology, THAT UNITY of two oneness is not the oneness after which the theology Oneness Godhead teaching is about. It is about one person comprising the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)[/Indent]

If I say that the Father and the man, Christ Jesus, are one... That He is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him... That this oneness of being is so complete that to see one is to see the other, to hear one, is to hear the other... That it is the Father who dwelleth in the very being of the man, Christ Jesus, that has done Christ's works...Why isn't that sufficient?

All of that is true, but it is a different oneness than the issue we are dealing with at hand.

That is the skirting issue, and not the actual issue we are discussing, I think.

Oneness is that of ONE PERSON alone between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And until you stop throwing limitations of man onto God you will never be able to see the point. Trinitarianism and your-ism both come from the perspective of interpreting God's nature on the basis of human interaction with human. Jesus spoke as the Father when He said he IS before Abraham. That was no grammatical mistake in the writing. Jesus said He is our God and we are His sons in Rev 21:7. TO say this concept about a HUMAN PERSON distinct in Jesus from the Father's person is to say what the bible never once stated, and the language was available for the writers to say that if it were the case.

Why imaginatively postulate how Jesus is His own Son? It's illogical and unbiblical..

I disagree. It is the only proper explanation for what the bible said about God being one. I would not base my theology on titles we use for terms in grammar. The BIBLE never once said God was more than one person. The bottom line is the Bible never said God was more than one person anywhere. And if that were the case, with the bible's silence on that statement, then we have one huge gaping hole in the Word.

It's like arguing that with God three divine persons can be one God. Again, unbiblical and illogical. By this logic let's add the Seven Spirits of God in the Revelation and claim they are distinct divine persons. It's not an issue of what we can imagine God doing to reconcile Scripture with our fanciful theories. It's about believing in Christ's own testimony about His union with the Father and even being willing to use His own words to describe this oneness.

No, it's about letting the bible restrict our terms and descriptions of God by what it said about the issue itself. And it never said anything about more than one person. Sorry. If you used ONLY THE TERMS THE BIBLE USED, you could never say God was two persons in the time of Christ's life on earth in mortal flesh. My thoughts, anyway. :thumbsup

[Aquila]

No, it's about letting the bible restrict our terms and descriptions of God by what it said about the issue itself. And it never said anything about more than one person. Sorry. If you used ONLY THE TERMS THE BIBLE USED, you could never say God was two persons in the time of Christ's life on earth in mortal flesh. My thoughts, anyway. :thumbsup

Notice how throughout your entire post you essentially agreed to the spiritual realities I presented. However, you begin to digress into the theoretical as you discuss "Oneness" as "Oneness theologians" of the 20th century have defined it.

The Bible speaks of the relationship between Father and Son. Love between the Father and the Son. Conversation between the Father and the Son. The ontological shared being of between the Father and the Son. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist... but I know that God used this relationship to reveal Himself in a human being, the man Jesus Christ. Why deny His unique and distinct "human" personhood?

I'll repeat my earlier statement...

If I say that the Father and the man, Christ Jesus, are one... That He is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him... That this oneness of being is so complete that to see one is to see the other, to hear one, is to hear the other... That it is the Father who dwelleth in the very being of the man, Christ Jesus, that has done Christ's works...Why isn't that sufficient?

These are the very terms used by Jesus Himself to describe His Oneness with the Father. Why are these terms to be rejected?

[mfblume]

Notice how throughout your entire post you essentially agreed to the spiritual realities I presented. However, you begin to digress into the theoretical as you discuss "Oneness" as "Oneness theologians" of the 20th century have defined it.

Not so. You just quoted me saying to stick to the terms the Bible itself uses. Let's not digress from THAT.



The Bible speaks of the relationship between Father and Son. Love between the Father and the Son. Conversation between the Father and the Son. The ontological shared being of between the Father and the Son. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist... but I know that God used this relationship to reveal Himself in a human being, the man Jesus Christ. Why deny His unique and distinct "human" personhood?

Why use PERSONHOOD in this sense when the bible doesn't? Let's stick to biblical terms. you're using 20th century trinitarian terms, brother.


I'll repeat my earlier statement...

If I say that the Father and the man, Christ Jesus, are one... That He is "in" the Father and the Father "in" Him... That this oneness of being is so complete that to see one is to see the other, to hear one, is to hear the other... That it is the Father who dwelleth in the very being of the man, Christ Jesus, that has done Christ's works...Why isn't that sufficient?

These are the very terms used by Jesus Himself to describe His Oneness with the Father. Why are these terms to be rejected?

I'll repeat what I told you in response to that.

But that is not the same oneness that we are really talking about. I already said oneness that proposes ONE COMMON PERSON between Father and Son ALSO sees the unity described in John 14 that is ANOTHER sort of oneness as in unity of purpose. But the oneness we are dealing with is apart from that.

[Steve Epley]

Does Jesus have a child?

Yes I am His child.:thumbsup

[Jermyn Davidson]

I thought it was theologically correct to look at Jesus as my oldest brother, "joint heir" language of the Apostle Paul.

[mfblume]

I thought it was theologically correct to look at Jesus as my oldest brother, "joint heir" language of the Apostle Paul.

That is true, according to his Sonship, as well as our Father according to Rev 21:7.

[Esaias]

Question: what did Jesus mean when he said in prayer to God that he was going to the Father?

[mfblume]

Question: what did Jesus mean when he said in prayer to God that he was going to the Father?

I believe He meant what the Atonement picture of the High Priest entering the Holiest was trying to convey. Without the atonement being made as High Priest to the Father, all of what He said would occur as a result could not happen. It's more of an atonement statement than any indication of the nature of the Godhead.

[Timmy]

That is true, according to his Sonship, as well as our Father according to Rev 21:7.

Are you your own uncle? :heeheehee

[Aquila]

Question: what did Jesus mean when he said in prayer to God that he was going to the Father?

Ummm... it meant that He (the man Jesus Christ) would be glorified and ascend up into Heaven to be with the Father. In essence... it means what it says.

[mfblume]

Are you your own uncle? :heeheehee

There you go throwing our human limitations onto God again. I am not God so I cannot do what He did in this manner.

It's so elementary, T. You're missing it.

Timmy: Starting from the vantage point of being God, God manifesting as His own Son is like starting from the vantage point of man where man cannot be his own son or uncle. So, therefore, God cannot manifest as His own human Son. Therefore, God is a Human being and not God at all.

Really logical, T. lol

[Aquila]

There you go throwing our human limitations onto God again. I am not God so I cannot do what He did in this manner.

It's so elementary, T. You're missing it.

Timmy: Starting from the vantage point of being God, God manifesting as His own Son is like starting from the vantage point of man where man cannot be his own son or uncle. So, therefore, God cannot manifest as His own human Son. Therefore, God is a Human being and not God at all.

Really logical, T. lol

With God all things are possible. You indeed could be your own grandpa.... lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu_Y1wQ923g

[Timmy]

There you go throwing our human limitations onto God again. I am not God so I cannot do what He did in this manner.

It's so elementary, T. You're missing it.

Timmy: Starting from the vantage point of being God, God manifesting as His own Son is like starting from the vantage point of man where man cannot be his own son or uncle. So, therefore, God cannot manifest as His own human Son. Therefore, God is a Human being and not God at all.

Really logical, T. lol

So you are your own uncle, because God, being able to do anything, is your father and your brother. Got it.

[Aquila]

So you are your own uncle, because God, being able to do anything, is your father and your brother. Got it.

:thumbsup :heeheehee

[mfblume]

So you are your own uncle, because God, being able to do anything, is your father and your brother. Got it.

Myself in relation to me does not allow that. Get it?

[Aquila]

Myself in relation to me does not allow that. Get it?

Why not? I wouldn't limit God Rev. Blume. If God is literally your Father by being your Creator... and He is your elder brother in a spiritual sense according to covenant... spiritually speaking... you are truly your own uncle. lol

[mfblume]

Why not? I wouldn't limit God Rev. Blume.

You are missing the issue. It's not limiting God. lol. It's limiting me.

Let's play with this for a bit. lol

Because it can be said Jesus is "my" Father as well as He is "my" brother, because God can do this (not that God can do ANYTHING, since He cannot lie, etc.), puts His manifestations in the position of Himself being "His own" Son.

Since I am His son and His brother as a result, then the brotherhood and sonship I possess is not so in relation to one of my positions compared to the other position. They're what they are in relation "to Him." Me being Jesus' son as well as Jesus' brother does not make me anything to myself. It makes me two things to Him!

And that reinforces oneness in a neat way, because I being in His image am ONE PERSON who is TWO THINGS TO HIM!

[Timmy]

Lol.

[mfblume]

Lol.

:thumbsup

[Timmy]

Does God have a father?

[shazeep]

:lol

[Timmy]

:heeheehee

[Timmy]

So, does Jesus have a begotten son?

[shazeep]

i've never dug into that specifically, but discounted it for the reason that i have looked into how mythology propagates; and yes, as a Christian, you have a mythology, which does not mean 'myth' as we define it today. Enduring mythology is not pulp fiction--or our current 'myth'--which is here today, gone tomorrow.

While many naifs attempt to place, say, the resurrection, and/or the ascension of Christ into the 'pulp fiction' category, this just ignores how stories propagate. While you might fool some--or even many--of the people by repeating a lie often enough, it will only be for a time, as that lie is eventually revealed, and the story dies of its own. there are at least hundreds of examples...

[Timmy]

i've never dug into that specifically, but discounted it for the reason that i have looked into how mythology propagates; and yes, as a Christian, you have a mythology, which does not mean 'myth' as we define it today. Enduring mythology is not pulp fiction--or our current 'myth'--which is here today, gone tomorrow.

While many naifs attempt to place, say, the resurrection, and/or the ascension of Christ into the 'pulp fiction' category, this just ignores how stories propagate. While you might fool some--or even many--of the people by repeating a lie often enough, it will only be for a time, as that lie is eventually revealed, and the story dies of its own. there are at least hundreds of examples...

And some last longer than others.

[shazeep]

well, i was looking for my list of examples, but i'm not on my pc. I can say that pulp fiction virtually never propagates very far, or for long. Even current-day Jews--at least those i have polled--do not repeat the alt story of Christ's removal from the tomb anymore; that story seems confined now to its mention in Scripture.

[Timmy]

well, i was looking for my list of examples, but i'm not on my pc. I can say that pulp fiction virtually never propagates very far, or for long. Even current-day Jews--at least those i have polled--do not repeat the alt story of Christ's removal from the tomb anymore; that story seems confined now to its mention in Scripture.

What actually happened, and how do you know?

[shazeep]

well, i'm not interested in blowing smoke here--who can say that they have proof for anything? But I am fairly convinced, now, that you cannot just make up some fantastic lie, a la "this guy was crucified, and buried, and rose from the dead," and start spreading it around, and have someone come along and write a book about it. It's kind of hard to explain briefly, by suffice it to say that the population existent at the time of the story sort of dictates what can and cannot be propagated.

i remember the study being kind of fascinating for me, because, say, the same populace that might deny Jesus was the Son of God would not verify the false version of His tomb story--i have more concrete examples, that one may not illustrate the point the best; but the point is that you can only fool some of the people some of the time, and a polling of any large # of people on any matter invariably reveals the truth, by %.

Iow, the truth will always, without exception--no matter how esoteric the question is--be revealed in the highest %. So in a sense, our most powerful force, so to speak. I don't mean to say that this proves the existence of Christ or anything--as i wasn't looking for that by then--but that it is impossible to fool all the people all the time. Ok, and this explanation is extremely simplified, there are exceptions for set periods of time, and special cases. But no lie propagates thru the ages.

[Timmy]

Thanks. Interesting take on it.

[Timmy]

(Not that I agree. ;))

[shazeep]

ha, well, this led me to what most here would call some 'strange' places--but i noted that even Christ quoted from, or at least referred to, writings not included in our present-day Bible. One of the exceptions, from above, is that if you wait 50 years to write the book, naturally much of the 'native' objection might have (literally) died down; and the standard for longevity then seems to be how accurate the book is. We have lost books written since the NT was written that did not meet this standard (apparently), although their loss seems to be lamented in certain circles.

I'm not sure if 'accurate' is the right word there; "applicable," maybe...

[Timmy]

ha, well, this led me to what most here would call some 'strange' places--but i noted that even Christ quoted from, or at least referred to, writings not included in our present-day Bible. One of the exceptions, from above, is that if you wait 50 years to write the book, naturally much of the 'native' objection might have (literally) died down; and the standard for longevity then seems to be how accurate the book is. We have lost books written since the NT was written that did not meet this standard (apparently), although their loss seems to be lamented in certain circles.

I'm not sure if 'accurate' is the right word there; "applicable," maybe...

Oh, I've never denied that there is some good wisdom (applicable) in the Bible. But I am skeptical of a lot of its accuracy. That some books survived a long time says nothing about that. The chosen books for the canon reflected a certain group of people's preferred narrative. Other groups had other ideas, but they lost. The winners ended up with a different canon, just because they were the winners.

Other canons are still in use today, by the way. Majority rules? Mmmkay.

[Timmy]

And it doesn't help that truth is in the eye of the beholder! Have two believers look at the same passage and they'll get three meanings for it. :lol

[MarcBee]

Oh, I've never denied that there is some good wisdom (applicable) in the Bible. But I am skeptical of a lot of its accuracy..

You mean such as that "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" were demonstrably not written by anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but rather named by later Christians believing the accounts sounded like M, M, J, and J?

That some books survived a long time says nothing... The chosen books for the canon reflected a certain group of people's preferred narrative. Other groups had other ideas, but they lost. The winners ended up with a different canon, just because they were the winners..

Yep. The precious KJV originally featured 7 books (intertestament) that were all but left out of KJVs by the mid 1800s. AMAZING how long it took Yahweh, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost to finally get it right!

Other canons are still in use today, by the way. Majority rules? Mmmkay.


And when the Muslim population overtakes the worldwide Christian population (and it will, given birth rates) I guess that means (at least to someone in this thread) that the Koran is then vindicated as true or valid, thanks to long-term popularity.

:icecream

[shazeep]

Oh, I've never denied that there is some good wisdom (applicable) in the Bible. But I am skeptical of a lot of its accuracy. That some books survived a long time says nothing about that. The chosen books for the canon reflected a certain group of people's preferred narrative. Other groups had other ideas, but they lost. The winners ended up with a different canon, just because they were the winners.

Other canons are still in use today, by the way. Majority rules? Mmmkay.ya, no argument here on that. I have sought out the other Books, and refer to them some. There really isn't anything that stands out to me as differentiating in them v the present day Bible, tho.

[shazeep]

And it doesn't help that truth is in the eye of the beholder! Have two believers look at the same passage and they'll get three meanings for it. :lolI have come to believe that this is by design, so that one's heart may be revealed.

[Timmy]

I have come to believe that this is by design, so that one's heart may be revealed.

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. Lol

[BrotherEastman]

Ah yes, the antagonists arrive.

[thephnxman]

The whole problem i see with all these questions is that people are throwing what is a dilemma to human beings due to our limited faculties, but is not a limitation for God who is GOD. God is not limited to the status of a creature that can only do certain things and no more.

It always amazes me how this is such an overlooked issue.

To us, being our own child is impossible! It can only be an imagined situation from an unhealthy mind that cannot reason properly. And in reality it is not real at all. And that's why people give all these answers that God is schizoid if oneness is true. lol

Our human personhood does not have the ability to manifest in a genuine manner as a human being as though it was a SON to us.... we become our own son. But God is not restricted like that. God is not a human being. lol. FOR THE TENTH TIME God is not a human being with restrictions. He manifested as a human being but his starting point was GOD, unlike us who cannot manifest as another human because we can only but start to do anything from the beginning of being human, and that simply disallows for us to do what God can do.

So, God, who can do what we cannot in untold millions of areas, manifested Himself as the SON OF GOD. From THAT perspective of HIS PERSON, the person of His son being one with that of God, HE IS HIS OWN SON. But from the perspective of his existence as God and the manifestation of His person as a human being, God is not a human being as per GODHOOD any more than the humanity of the Son of God is deity. Humanity is not deity. It never was nor ever can be. Humanity and Godhood are forever distinct. So, in regards to His human manifestation contrasted from His Deity, He is not His own Son. But from the perspective of the common person in GOD (who can do far more than we can), and SON OF GOD, He IS His own Son.

It's like saying that if I can turn myself into a table and a chair at the same time, the table is not the chair, but in the sense that I turned myself into both of those things, and the subject is ME, then the table is the chair.

Good try!

[shazeep]

:lol it's like discussing angels dancing, imo...
Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. Lol
hmm. i think it does, when you consider that God judges one's heart. One is plainly revealed in their choices, and ways of looking at things, but they are only able to observe other's reasoning for their choices--their own is much more opaque to them, at least until they find the observer in themselves.

[mfblume]

Ah yes, the antagonists arrive.

Don't they always?

[BrotherEastman]

Don't they always?

I guess they do, lol

[shazeep]

:lol well the higher truth will always prevail--when forwarded in life situations, anyway. This being a forum, you kind of invite different povs, so...behold, MB's heart! :D

[shazeep]

And when the Muslim population overtakes the worldwide Christian population (and it will, given birth rates) I guess that means (at least to someone in this thread) that the Koran is then vindicated as true or valid, thanks to long-term popularity.

:icecreamok and since this was for me, i'll say that we, humans, spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to serve God on our terms; and this would be called "religion." But there is only one way to serve God, as the Bible--and the Qur'an--plainly state; follow Christ or be lost.

We think of Christianity in terms of our local church, or this forum, etc, but to the rest of the world, it is represented by our leaders--whose actions are largely hidden from us--or (poorly) justified away when some news does leak out to us--and I think (radical) Islam arises due to our (leaders') sin.

You can nit-pick it, but the Qur'an really has little to disagree with in it, imo, aside from the cultural differences. The main theme is still that evildoers are punished by God, and everyone's heart will be judged. So, while i have no great love for the form or anything, i think the Qur'an will persist because it divides hearts, similar to Scripture. I think Islam is being warped by satan--just like he warped Christianity--and used against us, which would not be possible if Christianity was in order. We can blindly rail against it all we like, but the truth is that actions bring consequences, and if it wasn't radical Islam it would be something else.

[MarcBee]

...But there is only one way to serve God, as the Bible--and the Qur'an--plainly state; follow Christ or be lost..

Fascinating--you got any Koo-ron for that? And do know any "real" Muslims who claim the same interpretation?

:icecream

[shazeep]

Fascinating--you got any Koo-ron for that? And do know any "real" Muslims who claim the same interpretation?

:icecreamIt is first stated in the second Sir'ah, I believe; and other places. And i would have to say that you probably could not meet a practicing Muslim who would not accept this principle if you tried--radical Islam notwithstanding. Categorically, of course :lol

Now, you might likely convert (sway might be a better word) a practicing Muslim into a radical one, if you were to approach them...in a superior fashion; but then that would be as likely, so to speak, as punching the buttons of some stranger in America. You only have to look within yourself; if some guy in a turban walks up to you and says "Americans suck" or whatever, your reaction is not likely to be yadayadayada like that. While i have got into--or rather out of--some heated discussions, i have yet to part from any spiritual discussion with Muslims on poor terms. Then there are of course the occasional bad seeds; which make the news.

[Esaias]

The more I read or hear the arguments of atheists, the more I am amazed they can even get out of bed and tie their shoes every morning.

Utterly dumfounding. Where are the atheists who can actually put two propositions together to make a basic syllogism? Was Nietzsche the last? Lol

[shazeep]

Ah well nevermind then; i wasn't aware... :lol

[Esaias]

Just for grins, I checked that bastion of factual knowledge called Wikipedia, and here's the results:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth

Assuming the current growth rates are maintained through 2050 Christianity will still be the largest religion on planet earth. Although Islam's rate is BARELY higher than Christianity's, as Islam moves more into western nations that growth rate will - like everyone else's who experience upward mobility - decline. Interestingly enough, I recently read another report stating that the majority of western converts to Islam are women. Simply put, if western men aren't being attracted to Islam, it will eventually be irrelevant. The glut of Islamic women will be forced to either marry (and submit to) infidel husbands... or they'll have to move to the middle east and join a harem if they want a husband.

Seems kind of like an eventually self limiting phenomenon, doesn't it?

Meanwhile the world's resources are still controlled by Luciferian-humanist interests so both religions continue to play the role of either useful idiots or controlled opposition.

Maybe God will interrupt and ruin everyone's plans, tho?

[shazeep]

ok wow--strange it seems, to me, that Western women might be attracted to Islam, it being currently so distorted in our news. There is some reflection there on how satan attacks the men in a society, but i'm not quite clear what that is yet. I note other examples of women spiritually leading the way out of a wilderness, and wonder if that is not a kind of harbinger...

[Esaias]

ok wow--strange it seems, to me, that Western women might be attracted to Islam, it being currently so distorted in our news. There is some reflection there on how satan attacks the men in a society, but i'm not quite clear what that is yet. I note other examples of women spiritually leading the way out of a wilderness, and wonder if that is not a kind of harbinger...

From what I understand women are targets of other Muslim women's evangelism. They take in a young mother, make sure she always has what she needs for her children, etc... kind of like other cults (masons, jews, oh and 1st - 3rd century Christian s... )

[shazeep]

hmm. the best reply to that might be "there was a vineyard owner who had two sons..."

[Ferd]

Does Jesus have a child?

I admit it.

ITS ME!