My Kingdom is Not of This World

[Sassy]

I agree, Jesus was a human nothing more, nothing less.

Fully Human but a Holy Thing and called the Son of God.

[floo]

Fully Human but a Holy Thing and called the Son of God.

A less than credible belief, not a fact.

[Anchorman]

Fully Human but a Holy Thing and called the Son of God.

NB. This doctrine is not that shared by any mainstream church.

[Sassy]

A less than credible belief, not a fact.

According to Christ and the witnesses it is a fact. A well documented one by all accounts.
Your belief is less of a fact because it has only one witness.. yourself.
Guess your replies has a belief and witness of one yourself. Christ had many and spread across the world.
Tell me floo, will anything you ever did be known around the world regarding words and personal actions in 2,000 years?
Even common sense of what can be seen and reasoned on the subject simply evades you.

[Sassy]

NB. This doctrine is not that shared by any mainstream church.

Luke  1:35(KJV)

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Is Luke a liar did the Angel not say because he was born by the power of the Holy Ghost and the power of Almighty God himself that Christ was a HOLY THING and was to be called the Son of God?

King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Did Jesus Christ or God come in flesh?

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

God told mankind that Christ was a Holy Thing and was to be called THE SON OF GOD.

Who do you think the deceivers claim came in the flesh?

God alone knows all things. As God and Christ did not lie. Then when Christ said:King James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

To be God in person in flesh then he would be lying if he said he did not know the day or hour of his return.
Clearly Christ says ONLY his Father, who is God knows that time.

Whilst Christ revealed God to us and his true nature. At no time does he claim to be God. Even Peter makes this clear.

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.

God was with him, not God was him.

You see how over the years man has changed the teachings. As a Child I knew Jesus was Gods son.
I know being my Fathers daughter does not make me my Father. As Only Jesus Father knew the day of his return Jesus came
in the flesh and God was with him and gave him power and anointed him with the Spirit.



King James Bible
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Lovers of truth are true worshippers of God. 24 God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit, and in trueth.

Why do you believe the bible speaks about these matters clearly. Was Moses not made like a God unto Pharaoh? But he like Christ was sent by God to mankind. They both revealed the will of God for his people. Christ was a Holy thing from the start a second Adam born by the power of Gods word made flesh.

You either follow the teachings of God or be lost in the teachings of man. Peter believed Jesus to be a man.

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.

In that one sentence, we see that Peter is telling you that Jesus was anointed by God and was given his power by God and the Holy Spirit. That he did all he did by Gods power and God himself was WITH HIM.

Now you have been told. Either the scales will fall from your eyes or you will continue in the illusion. For God made it very clear...

King James Bible
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

My belief is both biblical and supported by the Apostles and especially Peter and Lukes account.
Even Paul gave warning in letters.  Jesus Christ is the Messiah and he is the Son of God the Prophet he promised through Moses.

[floo]

Luke  1:35(KJV)

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Is Luke a liar did the Angel not say because he was born by the power of the Holy Ghost and the power of Almighty God himself that Christ was a HOLY THING and was to be called the Son of God?
Did Jesus Christ or God come in flesh?

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

God told mankind that Christ was a Holy Thing and was to be called THE SON OF GOD.

Who do you think the deceivers claim came in the flesh?

God alone knows all things. As God and Christ did not lie. Then when Christ said:King James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

To be God in person in flesh then he would be lying if he said he did not know the day or hour of his return.
Clearly Christ says ONLY his Father, who is God knows that time.

Whilst Christ revealed God to us and his true nature. At no time does he claim to be God. Even Peter makes this clear.

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.

God was with him, not God was him.

You see how over the years man has changed the teachings. As a Child I knew Jesus was Gods son.
I know being my Fathers daughter does not make me my Father. As Only Jesus Father knew the day of his return Jesus came
in the flesh and God was with him and gave him power and anointed him with the Spirit.



King James Bible
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Lovers of truth are true worshippers of God. 24 God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit, and in trueth.

Why do you believe the bible speaks about these matters clearly. Was Moses not made like a God unto Pharaoh? But he like Christ was sent by God to mankind. They both revealed the will of God for his people. Christ was a Holy thing from the start a second Adam born by the power of Gods word made flesh.

You either follow the teachings of God or be lost in the teachings of man. Peter believed Jesus to be a man.

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.

In that one sentence, we see that Peter is telling you that Jesus was anointed by God and was given his power by God and the Holy Spirit. That he did all he did by Gods power and God himself was WITH HIM.

Now you have been told. Either the scales will fall from your eyes or you will continue in the illusion. For God made it very clear...

King James Bible
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

My belief is both biblical and supported by the Apostles and especially Peter and Lukes account.
Even Paul gave warning in letters.  Jesus Christ is the Messiah and he is the Son of God the Prophet he promised through Moses.

You belief is your own creation, other Christians don't see it your way.

[Nearly Sane]

You belief is your own creation, other Christians don't see it your way.

Apart from the ad populum here, you are incorrect, Sassy's views are far from unique and have a long history.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism


(as an aside if someone writes a long post and you are the next person replying , is it worth repeating the entire post just to add on a sentence? I would have thought those using screen readers might find it abit annoying)

[Shaker]

Apart from the ad populum here, you are incorrect, Sassy's views are far from unique and have a long history.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism


(as an aside if someone writes a long post and you are the next person replying , is it worth repeating the entire post just to add on a sentence? I would have thought those using screen readers might find it abit annoying)

Not just those who use screen readers.

[Robbie]

Apart from the ad populum here, you are incorrect, Sassy's views are far from unique and have a long history.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism


You're right, didn't this come up a few weeks ago on another thread? I've no doubt some members of the mainstream denoms (if they think about it) believe it's possible. It's not important though, surely, or at least there are more important things.

[ippy]

According to Christ and the witnesses it is a fact. A well documented one by all accounts.
Your belief is less of a fact because it has only one witness.. yourself.
Guess your replies has a belief and witness of one yourself. Christ had many and spread across the world.
Tell me floo, will anything you ever did be known around the world regarding words and personal actions in 2,000 years?
Even common sense of what can be seen and reasoned on the subject simply evades you.

How do you know for certain anything is 'According to Christ and the witnesses it is a fact', I haven't seen any evidence that would support this idea of yours Sass, could you let us see the evidence that proves this asserted fact is indeed a fact?

regards ippy

[Spud]

Did Jesus Christ or God come in flesh?

Did the Holy Ghost or God come upon Mary?

[Outrider]

According to Christ and the witnesses it is a fact. A well documented one by all accounts.

According to the repeatedly edited second and/or third-hand accounts of alleged witnesses (you are aware of the well-documented unreliability of eye-witness testimony and long-term recall, right)...


O.

[Shaker]

Did the Holy Ghost or God come upon Mary?

Oh I say.

[SusanDoris]

When a long post is quoted with only a one-liner added, I scroll down past until I perceive a straight line, then read the one line!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to the repeatedly edited second and/or third-hand accounts of alleged witnesses (you are aware of the well-documented unreliability of eye-witness testimony and long-term recall, right)...


O.

You will of course be able to reference these repeated accounts of course and tell us why your other objections specially apply to Christians producing histories and er, any body else without resorting to the genetic fallacy.

[Gordon]

You will of course be able to reference these repeated accounts of course and tell us why your other objections specially apply to Christians producing histories and er, any body else without resorting to the genetic fallacy.

As has been noted before, any anecdotal accounts from any source whatsoever with the level of provenance of the NT, which is very little indeed, are of no real historical value since the contents for the most part are indistinguishable from fiction, so no genetic fallacy involved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As has been noted before, any anecdotal accounts from any source whatsoever with the level of provenance of the NT, which is very little indeed, are of no real historical value since the contents for the most part are indistinguishable from fiction, so no genetic fallacy involved.

Fiction is a possibility and of course a positive assertion so I shall revive my as yet unsatisfied expectation of your proof.
I think most historians would go though with a sincere belief in the Christian community that They had witnessed a ressurection.
A dogmatic claim of fiction being antitheist polemic and not history.

[Gordon]

Fiction is a possibility and of course a positive assertion so I shall revive my as yet unsatisfied expectation of your proof.

I haven't offered a 'proof': I've just noted the lack of provenance in the NT.
 

I think most historians would go though with a sincere belief in the Christian community that They had witnessed a ressurection.

A 'sincere belief' is one thing: that what is sincerely believed is historical fact in another thing entirely.

A dogmatic claim of fiction being antitheist polemic and not history.

I've often noted that fiction is a risk: how have you assessed this risk?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't offered a 'proof': I've just noted the lack of provenance in the NT.
 
A 'sincere belief' is one thing: that what is sincerely believed is historical fact in another thing entirely.

I've often noted that fiction is a risk: how have you assessed this risk?

You haven't offered proof but an assertion that this is fiction needs justification. Do you care to give justification beyond it being that it's something you cannot personally believe in?

The fiction defence seems a bit iffy since there is non supernatural fiction that can be passed off as fact.

That leaves your real non historical reasons. That this is a supernatural thing and they don't happen although a case could be made that this in fact was a rare event exploited by religion. After all what a naturalist or physicalist can believe is a movable feast, even up to the point where we have today's spectacle that a intelligent creator which creates a universe it isn't part of and of which it isn't part of is touted as a reasonable idea.
History is whatever happens or as they say ''One thing after another''.

You are basing the one after the other on the nature of things.

In terms of risk assessment that sounds just like managerese bullshit with you metaphorically lapelling me and saying a la Charles Endell '' you owe me a risk assessment son''.

All that is needed is for me to say why I think this is all sound and you've had that report in triplicate.

[Outrider]

You will of course be able to reference these repeated accounts of course and tell us why your other objections specially apply to Christians producing histories and er, any body else without resorting to the genetic fallacy.

The history of the bible is well documented, if you want to see the examples of it being translated through multiple languages, the scholarly accounts of how far after the alleged events the documentation occurred and the like, there's a wealth of information out there.

Likewise the scientific papers on how unreliable eye-witness accounts are, and how poor people's long-term memory is for specific details and the tendency of any story to 'drift' with time.

Is it any different in that regard to other accounts of the era? Perhaps, yes - the degree of overt editing and selection seems to be more significant than with most other texts from the era, and the extreme nature of the claims within is certainly far in excess of the relatively mundane politics, economics, warfare and everyday life that are documented in other places from similar eras.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The history of the bible is well documented, if you want to see the examples of it being translated through multiple languages, the scholarly accounts of how far after the alleged events the documentation occurred and the like, there's a wealth of information out there.

Likewise the scientific papers on how unreliable eye-witness accounts are, and how poor people's long-term memory is for specific details and the tendency of any story to 'drift' with time.

Is it any different in that regard to other accounts of the era? Perhaps, yes - the degree of overt editing and selection seems to be more significant than with most other texts from the era, and the extreme nature of the claims within is certainly far in excess of the relatively mundane politics, economics, warfare and everyday life that are documented in other places from similar eras.

O.

Unfortunately, for me, it is impossible at the end of the day for me to hide the fact that the claims are shaking hands with what you have described as 'extreme.'

There are two silver linings on the horizon here though
1: That would support those of us who think why stick to putting in something that embarrassing unless of course they sincerely believe that it happened?
2: That you acknowledge it was extreme even for those times, thus disproving those who think that this sort of thing was commonplace in a gullible age.

Since you are using the big swinging dick of the scientific paper it's a timely er, time to remind folks of the scientific paperage concerning conspiracy theory.

[Outrider]

Unfortunately, for me, it is impossible at the end of the day for me to hide the fact that the claims are shaking hands with what you have described as 'extreme.'

Which bit is 'extreme'?

The well documented history of New Testament works showing the time-frame for the authoring of the documents starting at least decades after the purported events, or the associated scientific investigations demonstrating the unreliability of human memory over such timeframes?

The demonstrable historical investigations suggesting that at least some, if not  most of the New Testament works were not written by the claimed authors? The fact that even if they are second hand accounts, and notwithstanding the unreliability of long-term memory (see above) that there is more than enough scientific investigation to show that eye-witness testimony is unreliable at the best of times.

The pretty much uncontested history which shows the selection and adjustment of texts to form the canon, and the rejection of other equally valid texts in order to establish an orthodoxy to suit the establishment of the era.

The established textual analysis showing the widespread additions, excisions and selective editing of the individual works to accommodate orthodoxy at various periods, as well as the demonstrable history of the translation from Aramaic and Greek into Latin, and the further into 'Vulgar' tongues, each step attempting to convert cultural concepts into relevant approximations where the new culture has no direct correlate for the original understanding.

There are two silver linings on the horizon here though
1: That would support those of us who think why stick to putting in something that embarrassing unless of course they sincerely believe that it happened?
2: That you acknowledge it was extreme even for those times, thus disproving those who think that this sort of thing was commonplace in a gullible age.

That it's seen, in some enlightened circles, as an extreme claim now, doesn't mean that it's an extreme claim now. Indeed, I suspect the majority of the world's populace now wouldn't see it as an inherently extreme claim. As to embarrassing, the nature of the closed circle of religion is that in many instances cleaving to something that's palpably nonsense in the face of reality is seen as a virtue, not an embarrassment.

Since you are using the big swinging dick of the scientific paper it's a timely er, time to remind folks of the scientific paperage concerning conspiracy theory.

The one that puts conspiracy theory down to a combination of inherent cognitive and confirmation biases acting upon a superficial veneer of apparent evidence? That's why academic systems implement peer-review, to eliminate so far as is possible those biases. It's probably not perfect, but it's the most effective and reliable system we've implemented as yet.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which bit is 'extreme'?

The well documented history of New Testament works showing the time-frame for the authoring of the documents starting at least decades after the purported events, or the associated scientific investigations demonstrating the unreliability of human memory over such timeframes?

The demonstrable historical investigations suggesting that at least some, if not  most of the New Testament works were not written by the claimed authors? The fact that even if they are second hand accounts, and notwithstanding the unreliability of long-term memory (see above) that there is more than enough scientific investigation to show that eye-witness testimony is unreliable at the best of times.

The pretty much uncontested history which shows the selection and adjustment of texts to form the canon, and the rejection of other equally valid texts in order to establish an orthodoxy to suit the establishment of the era.

The established textual analysis showing the widespread additions, excisions and selective editing of the individual works to accommodate orthodoxy at various periods, as well as the demonstrable history of the translation from Aramaic and Greek into Latin, and the further into 'Vulgar' tongues, each step attempting to convert cultural concepts into relevant approximations where the new culture has no direct correlate for the original understanding.

That it's seen, in some enlightened circles, as an extreme claim now, doesn't mean that it's an extreme claim now. Indeed, I suspect the majority of the world's populace now wouldn't see it as an inherently extreme claim. As to embarrassing, the nature of the closed circle of religion is that in many instances cleaving to something that's palpably nonsense in the face of reality is seen as a virtue, not an embarrassment.

The one that puts conspiracy theory down to a combination of inherent cognitive and confirmation biases acting upon a superficial veneer of apparent evidence? That's why academic systems implement peer-review, to eliminate so far as is possible those biases. It's probably not perfect, but it's the most effective and reliable system we've implemented as yet.

O.

That is now, maybe, But these ideas were embarrassing then, in a world where you say claims of a resurrection were in a sense extreme, then.

And the fact that I as a Christian can admit to them being extreme belies your picture of a world which accepts this as not extreme.

Look let me prove you wrong at a stroke.
Extreme in this sense means an event that doesn't naturally happen. Most Christians believe that the resurrection is a rare miracle. That it doesn't happen naturally is therefore a given

Having usefully declared that the world of the first century was not as gullible as some of your co stealth religionists would say.

You announced that religionists see the resurrection as not something that doesn't happen naturally or being unusual. That they view resurrection as a miracle and an almost unique event proves you wrong.

In the question of the term of long term memory. We have to apply the implications that to all history for you not to be specially pleading again.

There are papers with equations regarding the length of survival for conspiracies.


 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That it's seen, in some enlightened circles, as an extreme claim now,

Well thank you for including me in the enlightened circle which raises the question then ''how would YOU know?''.

[Gordon]

You haven't offered proof but an assertion that this is fiction needs justification.

Certainly: mistakes and lies are always a risk with anecdotal accounts, and especially where the provenance is uncertain and where the details may could involve those with a personal interest in what is being portrayed. The police accounts of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 is a more recent example of risks associated with human artifice.

Do you care to give justification beyond it being that it's something you cannot personally believe in?

Just did: anecdotal/witness accounts come with risks, which is why perjury can get you locked up.

The fiction defence seems a bit iffy since there is non supernatural fiction that can be passed off as fact.

That doesn't preclude fiction though: for example if I said that while in Asda earlier I bought some butter it would be unremarkable and involves no supernatural agency. but it would still be a lie. The key point is though that my buying butter claim is trivial whether I'm telling the truth or not but if my claim involved something highly unusual that, if true, would go against how we expect things to work (for instance that I saw an adult walk on water without flotation aids) then the evidence bar needs to be raised a lot higher and the risks of mistakes or lies become much more important since a claim such as this is definitely non-trivial (unlike whether or not I bought butter this morning).

That leaves your real non historical reasons. That this is a supernatural thing and they don't happen although a case could be made that this in fact was a rare event exploited by religion.

Before you get to the exploited but you first have to determine that there was such an event, and that involves excluding the risks of mistakes or lies. People can exploit fictitious claims too you know, as we saw recently when 'Niburu' failed to show.
 

After all what a naturalist or physicalist can believe is a movable feast, even up to the point where we have today's spectacle that a intelligent creator which creates a universe it isn't part of and of which it isn't part of is touted as a reasonable idea.

No idea what you're trying to say here.
 

History is whatever happens or as they say ''One thing after another''.

Indeed: if you know it actually happened that is: since if not you have another type of historical event involving the perpetuation of unsupported claims.

You are basing the one after the other on the nature of things.

Which is fine when a) these things are natural, and b) they can be shown to have occurred. Of course people making mistakes and telling lies is natural too.

In terms of risk assessment that sounds just like managerese bullshit with you metaphorically lapelling me and saying a la Charles Endell '' you owe me a risk assessment son''.

Correct: so where is it?

All that is needed is for me to say why I think this is all sound and you've had that report in triplicate.

Must be windy where you are, Vlad, since you seem to be flying several kites at the same time.