Universal Reconcilliation =+= All The Proofs! And All The Questions!

[CHB]

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

[willieH]

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

I agree with you CHB... If YHVH is to be ...ALL...  IN  ...ALL... what part of us can then be said is not HIM?    :dunno:  :JCThink:

We are not "gods" ...of ourselves... we are "gods" because (1) He says we are and (2) because He, in ETERNITY, permeates us!   :happygrin:

What part of an APPLE is not the APPLE?  :dontknow:

I see this as a simple observation...

If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US...

pEAce...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[Craig]

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

Read it again, Jesus said, "Is it not written in 'YOUR LAW', I said you are Gods." Jesus didn't call them gods, He said 'their law' called them gods. Pay attention to the words Jesus used, He used them specifically.

[Craig]

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

I agree with you CHB... If YHVH is to be ...ALL...  IN  ...ALL... what part of us can then be said is not HIM?    :dunno:  :JCThink:

We are not "gods" ...of ourselves... we are "gods" because (1) He says we are and (2) because He, in ETERNITY, permeates us!   :happygrin:

What part of an APPLE is not the APPLE?  :dontknow:

I see this as a simple observation...

If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US...

pEAce...
...willieH  :cloud9:

Sorry Willieh,

I am need to reply. This is not to cause you offense, but you had a choice get into this part of the discussion or not, and you chose to enter. Perhaps against my better judgment, I will give you an opportunity to be civil in your disagreement with what I presented by establishing agreement with what I opposed.

You know this better than anyone else, the world is not about simple observations or bandaid, cookiecutter solutions. You have lived in a world that becomes more and more corrupt as people demand simple answers to complex problems, and those answers created even more problems than solved.

Do you not see that simple observations are most always flawed?

Let me demonstrate: Based on your simple observation, you have just reasoned and concluded that Satan, the devil, the serpent of old, along with his angels and demons, in actuality, God.

This, I conclude, is a deception from the very evil one who has always wanted to be your god.

1 John 2:29
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

Does Satan practice righteousness? No, therefore He is not born of God.

1 John 3:10
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

What is this? Anyone who does not practice what is right (righteousness) is not of God? Is this not a direct contradiction to your statement: "If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US..."

Absolutely. Who has more authority in what we are?

Even Jesus rebuked the Pharisee when they implied that Jesus was casting out demons in the name of the one who sent the demons.

Luke 11:14-20
Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, "By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons." Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

Jesus made a very clear distinction between what is God and what is not God. John made a very clear distinction between what is God and what is not God.

Amos 2:4-7
This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. Because they have rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees, because they have been led astray by false gods, the gods their ancestors followed, I will send fire upon Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem."

This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name.

They lie down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge. In the house of their god they drink wine taken as fines.

Now let us return to the first 'defense' that Jesus said we are god. Did he? Let us bring to rememberance again, Jesus did not say, "Does it not say in God's Law, or in 'The Law', but in 'your law' (meaning their law), that they are gods. Even Scripture states that Judah and Israel worshiped a different god, then YHWH. In the house 'their god', they drink wine taken as fines.

There has yet to be a reason presented which states anything that was presented here in saying 'we are God', because we are 'Children of God'.

Jesus Christ is not us, He is God who became us. None but He has done this, none but He will do this, and none He will ever do this. We are privileged to be called 'brothers' but to be 'brothers' with Jesus, is not the same to equate equality with God in the manner Jesus is to the Father. Without understanding that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one will continue to believe they are the Son, forgetting they are only sons.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:

Sorry Willieh,

I am need to reply. This is not to cause you offense, but you had a choice get into this part of the discussion or not, and you chose to enter. Perhaps against my better judgment, I will give you an opportunity to be civil in your disagreement with what I presented by establishing agreement with what I opposed.

You are more than welcome to your opinion Craig... If I am opposed to you, so what?  :dontknow:

As far as "giving me" an opportunity to be civil... though these appear to be somewhat provoking words, I will assume the intent was otherwise...  :HeartThrob:  If you decide to answer this post, you will be given the very same opportunity --- eh?  :grin:

It is my prerogative to agree with whom I, in my observations, ...will agree with, and to  disagree with whom I, in my observations, ...will disagree with...  :dontknow:

That you claim that you have correct understanding of something, is fine, and it may well be found to be true when all is said and done... but what YOU claim to know, is certainly not written in stone as truth... and I have the right to disagree with it...  :winkgrin:

You know this better than anyone else, the world is not about simple observations or bandaid, cookiecutter solutions. You have lived in a world that becomes more and more corrupt as people demand simple answers to complex problems, and those answers created even more problems than solved.

Do you not see that simple observations are most always flawed?

First, because of my extensive experience in LIFE, I heartily  :HeartThrob: disagree. 

Simplicity is ALWAYS the best course, and produces the least flawed results.  It has carried me successfully throught a lifetime, and I shall not now abandon it at your suggestion...  :wink1:

The Scripture agrees, and states opposition to your words bro... (Ps 19:7)  SIMPLICITY is always the best way, for COMPLICATION only leads to confusion.

Let me demonstrate: Based on your simple observation, you have just reasoned and concluded that Satan, the devil, the serpent of old, along with his angels and demons, in actuality, God.

You obviously have not read my so-called (by you) "simple observation", because THAT is NOT what "I observe".

I observe "satan" as ADVERSITY, which is the ability to DISOBEY the command of GOD.  This was created within Man, because GOD's WORD says:  ALL HAVE SINNED... Had this not been instilled from the beginning, those words would NOT have come to pass... and would be found ERRONEOUS and FALSE... However, ALL ...HAVE SINNED... and displayed those words written by PAUL as TRUE...  :happyclap:

Our disobedience is not blameable on another being... it comes from within ourselves (James 1:14)

This, I conclude, is a deception from the very evil one who has always wanted to be your god.

Sorry again Craig... I disagree... the EVIL "ONE" is each MAN within the NATURAL... not some mythical spirit which is given the name/title of "Satan"...

1 John 2:29
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

Does Satan practice righteousness? No, therefore He is not born of God.

"satan" is not a being, and IT (not "he"), therefore does not "practice" anything...

1 John 3:10
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

This verse simply attests to our NATURAL state which does NOT practice righteousness...

What is this? Anyone who does not practice what is right (righteousness) is not of God? Is this not a direct contradiction to your statement: "If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US..."

:laughing7: My statement is about the conclusion, not the process Craig... YHVH in the ETERNAL sense is ALL in ALL... for He never changes, nor becomes anything different for there is no need to change PERFECTION...

In this realm of TIME, a process is occuring which is TEMPORAL and NOT ETERNAL... I did not mean to mislead you or anyone else into thinking that YHVH is ALL in ALL in this realm.  :mblush:

Now let us return to the first 'defense' that Jesus said we are god. Did he? Let us bring to rememberance again, Jesus did not say, "Does it not say in God's Law, or in 'The Law', but in 'your law' (meaning their law), that they are gods. Even Scripture states that Judah and Israel worshiped a different god, then YHWH. In the house 'their god', they drink wine taken as fines.

Craig... I really think you have missed the point I have made concerning YHVH...

READ the Scripture which CHRIST quoted -- It SAYS... (Ps 82:6) I have SAID, Ye are gods; and ALL of you are the CHILDREN of the MOST HIGH...

When JESUS said, "is it not written in YOUR LAW"... it was not some reference to some finite, even questionable, "JEWISH Conditions"...

What He WAS ACTUALLY doing, was challenging them to believe what the HOLY Scriptures (which they held sacred) actually SAID!  We are provoked to the very same CHALLENGE... as we read it as well...

There has yet to be a reason presented which states anything that was presented here in saying 'we are God', because we are 'Children of God'.

I do not say that we are GOD... GOD is GOD... but once He permeates us completely as ALL in ALL, there is no portion of us that is not Him...

Offspring / Children are of the same essence of the Parent... you are welcome to observe it as you will brother...

Jesus Christ is not us, He is God who became us.

JESUS CHRIST is the Son of the GOD who became us ETERNALLY...  :dontknow:  The FULLNESS of DIVINITY dwelt in Him = ALL of YHVH was in CHRIST... the  FIRST BORN of MANY...

None but He has done this, none but He will do this, and none He will ever do this. We are privileged to be called 'brothers' but to be 'brothers' with Jesus, is not the same to equate equality with God in the manner Jesus is to the Father. Without understanding that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one will continue to believe they are the Son, forgetting they are only sons.

You are welcome to observe this as you will... I do not see it as do you... one or both of us could be wrong... and it really doesn't matter as long as BOTH of us keep searching...

We could go on and on disagreeing brother... Let's just leave it be...

(was that civil enough? ...just kidn'!  :laughing7:)

peAce...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[Craig]

If I made a mistake in what I observed, I apologize. Are you able to say the same?

You obviously have not read my so-called (by you) "simple observation", because THAT is NOT what "I observe".

Though, I did read it. I am not mistaken in what I read. The moment you said, "I agree CHB" is the moment you declared you agreed with her observation thus it was part of what you presented. It is no so-called, if what was presented is present.

Let us take a look:

Hi Paul,

I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".

Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.

CHB

Were you paying attention to the discussion? Did you observe what was being said in this discussion? Why agree to something you do not agree with? Does that not set up grounds for confusion?

Yes, you can agree to disagree,though I ask you to pay attention before replying or agreeing with others have said, because you missed this in your observation. Now if you were mistaken you can take back your words, and straighten the confusion your observation has caused.

Sidenote:

First, because of my extensive experience in LIFE, I heartily  :HeartThrob: disagree.

Simplicity is ALWAYS the best course, and produces the least flawed results.  It has carried me successfully throught a lifetime, and I shall not now abandon it at your suggestion...  :wink1:

The Scripture agrees, and states opposition to your words bro... (Ps 19:7)  SIMPLICITY is always the best way, for COMPLICATION only leads to confusion.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

Wise and Simple are opposites. in it's context, is speaking of how the testimonies, statutes, etc. of the Lord are without error. It is able to even make wise, those who are simple. It is literally saying, "The knowledge of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the ignorant."

Let me show you.

Psalm 119:130
The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.

Proverbs 1:32-33
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."

Proverbs 9:4
Let all who are simple come in here!" she says to those who lack judgment.

Proverbs 14:15
A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.

Proverbs 14:18
The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

Proverbs 19:25
Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.

Proverbs 21:11
When a mocker is punished, the simple gain wisdom; when a wise man is instructed, he gets knowledge.

So I ask, be careful in what you present as your proofs, and be careful in whom you 'agree' with. There is more confusion in having error, than being in the truth. It is not an issue of simple, or complicated; it is about what is false and what is true and both of those can be simple and complex depending on where it comes from. Hopefully, you are a wise and discerning man.

And no, I wasn't meaning the 'civil' thing to be provoking, I am just used to personal attacks being used as 'reasons' from you and I am asking you politely not to do it.

We can agree to disagree though, I am okay with that.

[CHB]

Willie,

What Craig is saying is you shouldn't agree with CHB. :bigGrin:

Craig, it doesn't matter to me who agrees with me or who doesn't, I still think you are wrong.

Whatever Satan is, he/it originated from God and he/it is called the god of this world.

(1Cor. 8:5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many.

Of course there is only ONE God the Father and there is only ONE God the Son who is Christ, who came from God and went back to God.

In the epistles it always says, "from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ" which means there are two beings.

(2Thess. 2:4) "above all that is called God". This scripture shows there are others who are called god.

(Psalms 82:6) I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the most High.

CHB

[Craig]

That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:

That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.

So small is this comment... I agreed with a portion that my friend CHB offered, ...I quoted that portion, and then, agreed with IT...  :dontknow:

I did not state COMPLETE agreement with all she has ever said...  :mshock:

Heck, I've even (in a few instances) agreed with YOU!  :laughing7: That certainly doesn't equate to COMPLETE agreement with YOU...  :laughing7:

A selective and unwarranted ASSUMPTION, resulting in a FALSE conclusion...  :sigh:

pEace...
...willieH   :cloud9:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:

If I made a mistake in what I observed, I apologize. Are you able to say the same?

I already did this bro... maybe you did not see it as an apology because I did not use the word APOLOGY, but it was one nevertheless:

:laughing7: My statement is about the conclusion, not the process Craig... YHVH in the ETERNAL sense is ALL in ALL... for He never changes, nor becomes anything different for there is no need to change PERFECTION...

In this realm of TIME, a process is occuring which is TEMPORAL and NOT ETERNAL... I did not mean to mislead you or anyone else into thinking that YHVH is ALL in ALL in this realm.  :mblush:

You obviously have not read my so-called (by you) "simple observation", because THAT is NOT what "I observe".

Though, I did read it. I am not mistaken in what I read. The moment you said, "I agree CHB" is the moment you declared you agreed with her observation thus it was part of what you presented. It is no so-called, if what was presented is present.

Let us take a look:

Hi Paul,

I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".

Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.

CHB

Were you paying attention to the discussion? Did you observe what was being said in this discussion?  Why agree to something you do not agree with? Does that not set up grounds for confusion?

Look at the (3) NEGATIVE points you made above Craig...

(1) you (as always) claim to be CORRECT, even though you ARE mistaken as to the degree of agreement I had noted with our dear sister CHB...  I agreed with the portion of her words which I QUOTED...

(2) You insinuate that I have not been paying attention to this discussion... I did not address the entire discussion, just a post by CHB, with which I agreed... It was not my intention to address ALL the points offered within it...

(3) You note that I set up grounds for confusion, by "agreeing with something I don't "agree" with (I did no such thing, I agreed with the portion I quoted... WITHOUT noting COMPLETE agreement, which YOU have inserted as my intent.)

That you and I have different observations is a an on-going -- 3yr -- gimme...  :grin:  ...and how we observe a discussion is also found to be different as well. (can't believe you have not recognized this by now!)  :dontknow:

I did not say to CHB that I agree with EVERYTHING she has stated, DID I?  :thumbdown: ...I agreed with the portion of her words which, I quoted (and still do!)...   :thumbsup:

This notation by CHB, made to Paul Hazelwood which you note above, is an entirely separated commentary, even though it is within the discussion.   The fact remains, that I did not SPECIFICALLY note that I agree or disagree, with this portion, ...DID I?  :mnah:

THIS is the portion of her words, which I DID QUOTE, and with which I DEFINITELY agree:

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

Yes, you can agree to disagree,though I ask you to pay attention before replying or agreeing with others have said, because you missed this in your observation. Now if you were mistaken you can take back your words, and straighten the confusion your observation has caused.

In a discussion, I reply to those within the discussion, not to the discussion as a whole... You have your way, I have mine...  :dontknow:

I have no words to "take back"...  :sigh:

As far as confusion, I think only YOU have become confused... and so I apologize to you for not being clear enough to YOU, as to how I am involved here...

I do not believe that anyone is either RIGHT or WRONG... I believe one is either VEILED or REVEALED in any given observation... So it is not an issue with me to be CORRECT about everything and I do not argue to that end...

For I know that Scripture notes ALL as SEEING through a glass DARKLY... which means we only SEE to the degree and in the areas, which GOD REVEALS... no RIGHT, no WRONG...  :dontknow:

No matter how long one searches, one will still be INCOMPLETE in understanding... believing what they have found in that search along the way...

If we are searching and found INCOMPLETE in any given area, ...it is not due to our lack of perserverance, rather to the WORKING of GOD, in our present understanding...

I believe that in that SEARCH, we must hold fast to what we believe... it is not my agenda to convince you or anyone else of ANYTHING...  :dontknow:

I don't REQUIRE that you believe as do I Craig... for I already KNOW that I am in error to a degree in those beliefs...  :mblush:

Btw... Do YOU have this KNOWLEDGE?  :Chinscratch:

First, because of my extensive experience in LIFE, I heartily  :HeartThrob: disagree.

Simplicity is ALWAYS the best course, and produces the least flawed results.  It has carried me successfully throught a lifetime, and I shall not now abandon it at your suggestion...  :wink1:

The Scripture agrees, and states opposition to your words bro... (Ps 19:7)  SIMPLICITY is always the best way, for COMPLICATION only leads to confusion.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

Wise and Simple are opposites. in it's context, is speaking of how the testimonies, statutes, etc. of the Lord are without error. It is able to even make wise, those who are simple. It is literally saying, "The knowledge of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the ignorant."

Actually it is stating that the WORD of YHVH is COMPLETE... and stating that it is able to COMPLETE (make wise) the SIMPLE (incomplete)

Wise and SIMPLE are NOT necessarily opposites...  :laughing7:

WISE and FOOLISH are opposites Craig... the OPPOSITE of SIMPLE is also COMPLICATED...  :dontknow:

The most SIMPLE person, can still be very WISE...  I know a guy that is quite "slow" mentally. He doesn't drink, smoke, or corouse... He believes in GOD, and in the area of WISDOM, he is LARGE, for his life doesnt bear FOOLISHNESS... it bears WISDOM, yet he remains SIMPLE...

He is a great example of:  (Matt 18:3) "except ye be converted and become AS LITTLE CHILDREN [simple], ye shall in NO wise, enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

CHRIST said this because, ...Little children, ...TRUST... and are willing to LEARN... are subject to the PARENT, and FOLLOW that PARENT wherever the PARENT GOES...  :dontknow:  Without AGENDA, nor DEVICE...  :boyheart: :girlheart: 

Not needing anything, other than the PARENT... and that which the PARENT decides should be, ...i.e --- location, activity, etc....

I often pray Lord, send me to WHERE you wish me to GO, to DO what you wish me to DO, and to SAY what you wish me to SAY...

SIMPLICITY is the playing field upon which ALL can PLAY Craig!  That is, ...unless the COMPLICATED ones in their pride, become unwilling to condescend (as does GOD) and refuse to "play" with the SIMPLE...  :dontknow:  ...Unwilling to "stoop" to SIMPLICITY...

GOD, who is INFINITE and without LIMIT concerning COMPLEXITY... has made the WISDOM of His WORD available to those which are at the farthest end of the COMPLEXITY (and COMPLETION) spectrum, ...the SIMPLE (BASICLY INCOMPLETE)...  :bigGrin:

Whether you behold that simplicity as FOOLISHNESS, or as BASIC... I believe it to be BOTH... for BASICALLY we are FOOLISH... but in that state, we can move UPWARD into WISDOM...

And THAT is what Psalm 19:7 conveys... (in my observation brother, you are certainly welcome to yours!  You on the other hand, insist I bow to your understandings... Which is basically the difference between us!)

In the below, the word SIMPLE is the area in which those who do NOT KNOW the Word of YHVH are in...

They lack WISDOM (knowledge of the WORD of YHVH), but are still, in their SIMPLICITY, able to gain that WISDOM, for GOD condescends to their level to build that WISDOM in them... for they are LITTLE CHILDREN... which are found to be SIMPLE.

PAUL noted (2 Cor 10:12) that there are those which MEASURE and COMPARE, ...THEMSELVES ...BY... THEMSELVES... and are found UNWISE...

Found thinking too highly of themselves, and their "knowledge"... I would rather be numbered amongst the SIMPLE... not comparing anyone or anything to myself... rather I compare myself to the WORD, seeking IT (not men) to reveal to me the CORRECTION that I need in my life.

No MAN can do this for me... only the WORD... believe what you will...  :dontknow:

Let me show you.

Psalm 119:130
The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.

Proverbs 1:32-33
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."

Proverbs 9:4
Let all who are simple come in here!" she says to those who lack judgment.

Proverbs 14:15
A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.

Proverbs 14:18
The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

Proverbs 19:25
Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.

Proverbs 21:11
When a mocker is punished, the simple gain wisdom; when a wise man is instructed, he gets knowledge.

So I ask, be careful in what you present as your proofs, and be careful in whom you 'agree' with. There is more confusion in having error, than being in the truth. It is not an issue of simple, or complicated; it is about what is false and what is true and both of those can be simple and complex depending on where it comes from. Hopefully, you are a wise and discerning man.

Simplicity, is the basis for complexity... That which is COMPLICATED begins and has its ORIGIN in Simplicity... which is what the above Scriptures convey... You are welcome to see them as opposites... I see them as building blocks... for as GOD who is able to show WISDOM to the SIMPLE... does so... He builds upon that foundation...

You don't see it that way... fine with me... I don't see your "proofs" as confounding what I said...  :sigh:

Because you believe you have TRUTH in this area... is reduced to YOUR view... which is not necessarily exalted to TRUTH...

And no, I wasn't meaning the 'civil' thing to be provoking, I am just used to personal attacks being used as 'reasons' from you and I am asking you politely not to do it.

For the record, ...I stated that, though your words concerning the "civil thing" SOUNDED PROVOKING, that I believed that this was NOT your INTENT...

In my opinion by this reply, it shows you stated the "civil" thing to begin dissension between us... You could have easily left it out, but... you didn't...  :sigh:

How unflattering of you to drag skeletons out of the closet Craig... It just shows that you haven't grown...

Our Savior instructed us to FORGIVE... try it brother C, ...you'll like it!  :happygrin:

pEace...
...willieH   :cloud9:

[CHB]

Hi willie, Craig,

I will take the blame for this one, I shouldn't have responded to what Craig said to you about me. Sorry for any role I played in this. willie, I do enjoy reading your post and agree with pretty much of what you have to say. Like you, I don't agree with any one 100% of the time and I don't think any one else does either, at least I haven't seen it on here or any other forum. I have learned a lot from reading others post though, but really what difference does it make whether we agree with each other or not? What do we have that wasn't given to us? We shouldn't be striving about little things like that, there are more important things to discuss. I am spiritually hungry, lets eat.

willie, I love you brother, Craig, I love you too.  :ilu: God bless you both.

Sorry for this interruption, Carry on.  :bgdance:

CHB

[willieH]

Hi willie, Craig,

I will take the blame for this one, I shouldn't have responded to what Craig said to you about me. Sorry for any role I played in this. willie, I do enjoy reading your post and agree with pretty much of what you have to say. Like you, I don't agree with any one 100% of the time and I don't think any one else does either, at least I haven't seen it on here or any other forum. I have learned a lot from reading others post though, but really what difference does it make whether we agree with each other or not? What do we have that wasn't given to us? We shouldn't be striving about little things like that, there are more important things to discuss. I am spiritually hungry, lets eat.

willie, I love you brother, Craig, I love you too.  :ilu: God bless you both.

Sorry for this interruption, Carry on.  :bgdance:

CHB

:goodpost:

For the record,

(1)  I love to read your comments as well sis!  :cloud9:

(2)  And find much agreement with you as well!  :bgdance:

(3) there is absolutely nothing here that is "your fault"...  :mpardon:

Love you too sis!  :friendstu: :giveheart:

...willieH   :cloud9:

[Craig]

CHB.

Although the moment you made it personal, is when you failed; the moment you apologized, is when you succeeded in this discussion.

Thanks

In love,
Craig

[Craig]

willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:

That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.

So small is this comment... I agreed with a portion that my friend CHB offered, ...I quoted that portion, and then, agreed with IT...  :dontknow:

I did not state COMPLETE agreement with all she has ever said...  :mshock:

Heck, I've even (in a few instances) agreed with YOU!  :laughing7: That certainly doesn't equate to COMPLETE agreement with YOU...  :laughing7:

A selective and unwarranted ASSUMPTION, resulting in a FALSE conclusion...  :sigh:

pEace...
...willieH   :cloud9:

Nope there was no assumption. You did not agree to a portion, you agreed. Leaving that you agreed to all of it. Therefore you, are responsible for clarification, since you offered no rebuttals to the portion you did not agree with. You need to take responsibility for your inability to communicate. The rest of what you replied, after this 'quote', has nothing of relevance, and means nothing, since you still do not accept you erred in your reply. So, instead of addressing it any longer, you should have apologized for the misunderstanding, and then ignored my response in relation misunderstanding that nobody knew about. That is your weakness, you cannot see beyond your feelings, or your what you think is obvious to others. You accuse others of assumptions, but cannot see where you have made assumptions and allowed them to be made.

Do not reply to this, I have no further purpose to continue this conversation. I already apologized if what I saw was a misunderstanding, and you failed to see it therefore I have no respect for your replies (notice I said your replies, not "you"). I have feelings also, so think very very clearly, and behave like an 'elder' in Christ, before you make any more responses.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi sotw...  :cloud9:

In my detailed reply I showed you respect several times... which YOU have opted to do otherwise in this "answer"...  :sigh:

It is not my intent now, nor ever was, to "hurt you feelin's" brother...  :friendstu:

You just have an agenda which insists it is correct... I do not...  :dontknow:

I prefer to believe that no one is actually right or wrong... we are either veiled or revealed in any given area...

We are ALL veiled to a degree Craig, this includes YOU and I...  :dontknow:

It is the work of GOD to remove the veils... which impede our understanding...  :cloud9:

willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:

That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.

So small is this comment... I agreed with a portion that my friend CHB offered, ...I quoted that portion, and then, agreed with IT...  :dontknow:

I did not state COMPLETE agreement with all she has ever said...  :mshock:

Heck, I've even (in a few instances) agreed with YOU!  :laughing7: That certainly doesn't equate to COMPLETE agreement with YOU...  :laughing7:

A selective and unwarranted ASSUMPTION, resulting in a FALSE conclusion...  :sigh:

pEace...
...willieH   :cloud9:

Nope there was no assumption. You did not agree to a portion, you agreed. Leaving that you agreed to all of it. Therefore you, are responsible for clarification,  :laughing7:   since you offered no rebuttals to the portion you did not agree with. You need to take responsibility for your inability to communicate.  :pointlaugh:  The rest of what you replied, after this 'quote', has nothing of relevance, and means nothing, since you still do not accept you erred in your reply.  :laugh:  So, instead of addressing it any longer, you should have apologized for the misunderstanding,  :drama:  and then ignored my response in relation misunderstanding that nobody knew about. That is your weakness, you cannot see beyond your feelings, or your what you think is obvious to others.  :violin:  You accuse others of assumptions, but cannot see where you have made assumptions and allowed them to be made.  :shakepoint:

Do not reply to this,  :whistleshake:  I have no further purpose to continue this conversation. I already apologized if what I saw was a misunderstanding, and you failed to see it therefore I have no respect for your replies (notice I said your replies, not "you"). I have feelings also, so think very very clearly, and behave like an 'elder' in Christ, before you make any more responses.

Do not reply?  Please...  :laughhand:

:Yeahright:   When is it going to dawn on you that I don't owe YOU anything, nor am I "responsible" to answer you... get a clue brother...

I post for the benefit of others, ...they (as well as you) can read what I post and are welcome to accept or reject what I say...   It just doesn't matter to me what you think of my observations...  :dontknow:

I gave you a concise and detailed answer, ...you don't agree with it, understand it, or accept it...  :dontknow:  ...not my problem...  :Mcry: 

I wish you no ill, regardless...  :HeartThrob:

pEace...
...willieH   :cloud9:

[autoimmune]

I never said we would be God.   the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.   

Paul, I think you may be mistaking subsisting within God (God's immanence within us through Christ) for existing as God in the same way Jesus was God over and above created beings (God's transcendence).

Subsistence and existence are related, but not equal.

Do you see a difference between the two?

Mary Ellen

[autoimmune]

Hi Paul,

I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".

Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.

CHB

We're told by John that those who believe are the right to be called the children of God, which is why we can call God "Abba" or Father.  Yet, Paul clarifies this in Eph 1: 5 by identifying the nature of that sonship—we are adopted children of God. 

Yes, we have the same rights of inheritance as the Son (as John says) because we are given the Father's name through Jesus Christ, but we cannot change our created state of being (as Paul tells us) because adopted children do not have the same " genetic makeup" of the begotten Son, who is God by nature and essence, not adoption.

As I mentioned to Paul in my first post, you mistake our subsistence in Christ for self-existent Godhood.

Either that or you do not view Jesus Christ as divine, the Son who is equal in essence to the Father.

Can't tell others what to believe about Jesus; He calls us each in His own way according to His own will, not ours; but I do think you've conflated several concepts from different sources to make something palatable to your own beliefs.  I don't mind that, but for clarity's sake it should be identified as Gnostic/New Age Christianity, which relies heavily on the Immanence of God in creating its doctrines, but ignores His Transcendence because it is inconvenient.

Mary Ellen

[autoimmune]

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

I believe the bible is a unity of Truth. The truth is not found in individual passages pulled out of context, but in weighing one passage against another and filtering ALL of it through Jesus' words and teachings.

For instance, the quote from Psalm 82 under discussion here that many cherrypick from the bible to prove their personal Christology that "ye are gods" does not hold up in context or meaning when examined either alone, or in light of what Jesus was saying to them. It can only hold true in isolation.

The context of that phrase includes such things as the audience it is addressed to, the purpose for which they are being addressed, the one doing the speaking, and an understanding of the historical and contemporary meanings of the vocabulary used.

In the case of Psalm 82, we can understood who the "congregation" mentioned is by referring back to Jesus' words in John 10:35 when He quoted this Psalm

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came. . . ."

The congregation being spoken to in the Psalm is those "to whom the word of God came." What is this "word"? Jesus tells us in the previous verse in John:

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

The word He is talking about is the Law--the Pentateuch, the Torah, the first five books of our bible.

Does this fit with the rest of Psalm 82? If we read the entire psalm, yes, it does fit. God, through the Psalmist is telling the Jews that they are like gods because He gave them the power to judge the people. However, they used this power poorly and failed to take care of the poor and the widowed and the orphaned. The Psalm ends with God basically saying "I am the only one who can judge with justice."

So, understanding this, that the Psalms are not saying all men are little gods waiting to become Christ Consciousness beings, but is referring instead to a specific group within the Jewish community given permission to do something which only God Himself is capable of doing justly, we can understand what Jesus is saying in John 10.

Jesus is speaking to the descendents of the very same people in Psalm 82, the Jews of the Sanhedrin, those given a small bit of power by God to judge the people and maintain the Law. If they, to whom God gave a just a little of His power to could be called little gods, then who were they to say He (Jesus) was a blasphemer when He, who was completely holy and had been sent into the world, called Himself the Son of God.

Jesus is not saying they had been sanctified by the Father and sent into the world in the same way He had been (which is what you are saying when you speak of Christ Consciousness--and whether you use the term or not, this is exactly what you and Paul are speaking about). He is merely comparing their limited authority to His own. And that's why He refers them to the work He is doing. They are incapable of such things and THAT is the sign that what He says is true.

When read in context, comparing the two scripture passages, it is easy to see that Jesus is making the OPPOSITE claim that you are, CHB.

Read Psalm 82 instead of blindly quoting it to make a point about your personal Christology. You might be surprised to see that the words following the oft quoted "ye are gods" phrase is this:

"but ye shall die AS MEN . . ."

Our natures do not change, only our relationship to God the Father through Jesus.

Mary Ellen

[Paul Hazelwood]

I never said we would be God.   the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.   

Paul, I think you may be mistaking subsisting within God (God's immanence within us through Christ) for existing as God in the same way Jesus was God over and above created beings (God's transcendence).

Subsistence and existence are related, but not equal.

Do you see a difference between the two?

Mary Ellen

I wrote we are still subject to the Father.    My point of view uses some scriptural consistancy.

Gn 1:27 And creating is the Elohim humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them.



Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim,  "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"



Phl 2:6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,



John 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
22  "And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,

[autoimmune]

And Seeker...

There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...

That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...

Well when you find scripture that shows that we have to go though a temporal punishment of any sorts, I would be interested to read that.

Two points this brings to my mind:

1.  Can any one scripture on its own "show" truth?  Isn't this what Christians have done for years, pulled verses out of context to shore up personal doctrines? Doesn't UR face that same problem if we are not careful to adhere to what the scriptures say?

2.  Do you see a difference between punishment and restitution for wrongs done?

I could point out many verses showing restitution is part of restoration.  We cannot be restored without equal recourse to God's Justice as to His Love.  They work together, imo, and cannot be isolated.  Without that, you end up with the extreme opposite of those who hold hell is infinite torture for finite crimes.  Neither one works for me personally and both seem to run counter to scripture.

Yes, those who accept Jesus' invitation are saved from condemnation, but how about those who refuse Him in this life and do face condemnation?

Don't get me wrong.  I fully embrace the universal restoration of all things through Christ.  I firmly believe we are called to follow Him because the Body of Christ plays an essential part in that ultimate plan to return all to God.  But I do not think we can discount one extreme that ignores God's Love by embracing the opposite extreme that discounts His Justice.

From what I understand of Jesus' teachings, Justice executed through Mercy is Love.  We cannot have the Love of God without both his Justice and Mercy--and that involves just condemnation before Mercy can be applied to arrive at that Love.

Mary Ellen

Look at what you said:

..the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...

Then you want some "afterlife" punishment too and then this kinda negates the Jesus sacrifice bit too as then He did not cover everything then?  (btw I am not a believer in substitution atonement - deep topic and study - later)

Well if you did what you implied I said you could do (which I didn't) you suffer the consequences in this life.

See with this perspective you haul out a sin list and also grade sins where in the eyes of God, sin is sin.  See it is the church system that introduced a sin list and a grading system.

Well - when you think about it, then it make salvation dependant on us and that is not so.

Read my blog and then ask questions again.

Blessings

fixed quote

[autoimmune]

Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.

Hi,

I can't answer all of your questions now, don't have the time but I am sure they all will be answered by others.

The wages of sin is death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.

CHB

I have similar ideas to yours about God's Love being a consuming fire, that the works not the person is consumed, and that the Lake of fire is a correction not a punishment.  I'm curious, though, could you explain in more detail when you do have time available how you actually view this correction?  Where and how is it done?  When works are burned up, is the person unaffected? Do they stand by untouched as they watch their works undergo the flames of God's Love?

I guess I'm asking if you differentiate between the first and second death?  If so, which represents the payment for the debt sin incurred in man?  Does Jesus' death cover both?  If so, in what ways?

I believe Jesus' death on the cross overcame death (so the debt for Adamic sin is paid and for those who believe in this age, they are spared the condemnation (trial before the Throne on the last day). 

Yet, scripture speaks of the condemnation of those who are not in Christ and a second death.  It speaks also of Christians undergoing this "fire/flame as well concerning their "works" and what they've built upon that foundation Christ provided for us. Where does this fit into the beliefs you've developed around UR?

I ask because I believe this is a relatively new area of study and, though lots has been written, there are very many different ways people are interpreting the rest of scripture based on UR as a foundational belief. I'm curious how others view it, what ideas they've developed from it, and how consistent those ideas are with scripture.

Thanks,
Mary Ellen

[autoimmune]

JESUS CHRIST paid the price for SIN Angel... no amount of "punishment" can rectify even one sin...

Hello, Willie.  I agree with this: ultimately it is Christ's death which rectifies it all. 

But, as I've asked elsewhere, do you see any difference between punishment and restitution in the name of Justice one makes for harms done others?  Yes, Christ's death is the mercy that will transform that justice into Love, but is the Love available without that restitution being accepted first?  And how does someone who has not accepted Christ in this life do so in the next--without doing what those who are called in this age must do, which is to allow GOd's Love to burn away everything in our egos that separates us from Him?

At death do those who never accepted salvation through Christ simply rise to a Loving life in God without any form of trial or condemnation taking place as Jesus said and as is explicit in many scriptural passages?  Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?

FTR,  I agree that they will be offered the same mercy Christians have accepted in this life, but I think the second death in the Lake of Fire is a very real thing and it won't be a walk in the park, a terrible burning away of all that they held onto in life that separated them from God and which will then be burned away from them.  Not a punishment, but the same Love all will be exposed to at the same time.  How we each experience it will depend on the relationship we built with God in this life.

  This lifetime IS the LAKE of FIRE, in which we suffer for SIN... the FLESH profits NOTHING...  :dontknow:

Sounds good . . . until we take into consideration the number of people in this life who seem to prosper from sin, who indisriminately hurt others and get away with it on a major scale.  Your statement would not satisfy any of the billions of people who have suffered injustice at the hand of a despot of some sort who lived life to a ripe old age surrounded by their ill gotten gains.  As I said, it sounds good, but it doesn't answer the practical questions people ask when faced with real life injustice that too often acts with impunity.

UR becomes a useless doctrine as a replacement for ET UNLESS it answers the questions people ask that lead them to believe in and accept such a strange concept about God to begin with.  If the bible contains God's truth, then the answers must be in there and conform to UR for UR to be true.  Otherwise, it's just another feel good religious point of view.

... and the FLESH which each of us SINS in, DIES and returns to the dust...

And when that flesh rises as we've been promised?  Where is the sin?  What account can be made for sin people did not submit to Jesus for payment then?  How is all recgtified at that point?

The assumption that it all just "disappears" regardless of how men accept Jesus' gift in this aeon or not baffles me.

If men simply died and never rose I might be able to accept your argument, but that ignores resurrection and the role of the second death.

Plus, we're back to the "is annhilation any better except in degree to ET?  If Jesus meant all, He meant all.

So, no, I can't accept your theology here. It leaves too many unanswered questions for me.

As JESUS said:  Let him WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone... we are all UNWORTHY to cast a stone at a SINNER, as we are found to hold that undistinguished title, ourselves...  :winkgrin:

No doubt, and that's why Jesus commanded us not to judge others.  Yet, He did speak frequently of judgment and condemnation.  Unless we can rectify those things with UR, keeping the character of God intact without eliminating either His Love or His Justice, we've got just another gnostic concept of how it all works according to our minds, and not the mind of God expressed in scriptures.

The observation of HITLER is an assumption that in some way, you consider your life a more worthy life than was his, based upon YOUR LIFE by comparision is it not?  Not picking on you, just trying to get you to see... we ALL deserve death, for even ONE SIN, sends CHRIST to the cross to redeem us!)

We all make assumptions, willie; you did , too, in assuming that "worthiness" instead of some concept of God's holines and justice leads one to ask the question AoT did.  Yes, Chrit's death paid for our littler sins as surely as it paid for the many of Hitler's, yet, you are suggesting that without recourse to Christ Hitler can be automatically forgiven at death.

I certainly do believe God wills Hitler's salvation and that Christ has purchased that for him.  Yet, Hitler must take the same responsibility for his many "big" sins as I and others have for our many "smaller" ones before that mercy can be applied.

Or did you come to Jesus Christ without some sense of metanoia/repentance?

I see nothing in your argument that requires a Hitler or a person at a mall with an AK47 to repent for their lack of love to others.  They simply die and the wage (death) is paid?

It seems as if you are equating human death with Mercy. A very weak argument I do not accept in the least.

There is no "afterlife" Angel... this is an UNBIBLICAL observation...

Upon the conclusion of this life, Our SPIRIT, ...RETURNS to where we emerged -- GOD...

If you are Christian, then where does resurrection fit into this picture, willie?

If not, okay, no argument from me, but I took it that AoT was asking for scriptural understandings about UR and how it impacts on beliefs he had before.

What you said above concerning the disposability of matter and the everlasting spirit indicates to me that you are a gnostic Christian.  As I said, no problem with me because Christ leads us all in our own way, but since a 14 year old may not be familiar with the differences I would probably post questions to you identifying those differences a lot more than I would normally.

Since you say the afterlife is an unbiblical observation, I feel you've opened the door to debate based on scripture.   So, please provide the scriptures for what you said next:

In order to RETURN, one must have previously been there... We came FROM GOD... we RETURN to Him... in ETERNITY we ALWAYS are... TIME is a temporal "classroom" in which the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL is gained, and in gaining that knowledge we become AS IS our Father and HIS Son... (Gen 3:22)

That last was straight out of Genesis and is the precise definition of original sin:  thinking we can discern good and evil through knowledge to become as gods . . .

Definitely gnostic, willie :) . . . and certainly a reversal of scripture, to say the least. 

So how many do you percieve are LOST, Angel?   Did CHRIST accomplish His mission?  At it's end, did He not say "IT IS FINISHED"? 

If there is still more to do (such as you suggest above in blue), why did He say it was finished?

In the same way you indicated above--not in temporal time, but in the Eternal Now of God.  It is the same "It is finished" as we hear in the Book of Revelation, willie, which has not yet occured in our time frame.  Both events are one, but separated through linear time.  When one was accomplished in the Eternal Now, the other was as well. But in linear time, only one has occured, the other is yet to come for us.  Just as some are now found and some yet to be found in linear time who are still lost..

Don't mistake the entire process in the eternal now for the separate events as we perceive them in linear time.  So, yes, in linear time, the only time man perceives and that GOd works with in His Love and Mercy, "there is still more to do."  Meaning people remain responsible for what they do within this time frame, even though in the eternal now they have been forgiven and restored to the Father.

Mary Ellen

[martincisneros]

I never said we would be God.   the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.   

The KJV and the NKJV quote a variant Greek manuscript which may be the more accurate one where Philippians 2 is concerned when it says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who thought it not robbery to be called equal with God."

I probably won't be the best apologist tonight 'cause of waking up from an afternoon nap that ran a little long, but there's a major difference between

equal to

&

equal with

Ephesians says that we've been raised up together to sit with Christ in heavenly places -- side by side with Him, side by side with one another, and side by side with Father -- but not equal to Father.  The New Age tries to promise people that they'll be equal to God, meaning that their word will be as true and as age-enduring as His -- which is absolute insanity.  Our words are only enduring to the degree that we've made His Word, our Word, and have put away from us a disobedient mouth and have put perverse lips far from us.  Equal with is a relational and positional relativity with regards to the rest of the Creation and for the specific purpose of raising up the rest of the Creation out of it's dung.

I think that there's still much confusion between the Kingdom age and what we shall be after 1Corinthians 15:28 when God is all in all, and both Christ and ourselves have abdicated after all things have been both subdued and reconciled.  We positionally have things right now out of necessity and out of covenant right in order to fulfill all of Father's purposes for the restitution of all things that might not always be ours in the way that they're ours right this minute.  That's an entirely different thing from being equal to and being able to use Kingdom resources, power, and wisdom for our own agendas.  I know that a lot of people don't believe in Milton's Paradise Lost type of theology, but it's still a fitting analogy, that God's not letting us do with His resources and power at His right hand what Lucifer got kicked out of heaven for doing with trying to be "equal to" with his own agenda.

[autoimmune]

I never said we would be God.   the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.   

Paul, I think you may be mistaking subsisting within God (God's immanence within us through Christ) for existing as God in the same way Jesus was God over and above created beings (God's transcendence).

Subsistence and existence are related, but not equal.

Do you see a difference between the two?

Mary Ellen

I wrote we are still subject to the Father.    My point of view uses some scriptural consistancy.

I have no argument that we are subject to Father because that is part of subsisting within God as an adopted child through Christ.  But that does not answer my question of whether or not you are claiming we will possess the equivalent divine essence and nature of Christ simply because we are graced to subsist within the divine?

Do we subsist within God through Christ, or do we exist AS the Godhead does, our human nature being changed to divine at that point?

Could you define for me what being an adopted child means to you in terms of our human nature and the divine nature of the Father and Son?
 

Gn 1:27 And creating is the Elohim humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them.

A biblical quote tells me nothing beyond what I believe it says unless you also explain why you chose it and how it relates to the point you wish to make.

What does being made in the image of God mean to you?  Does a created thing have the same essence as the Creator?  Are the beings equivalent because they are similar in likeness?

Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim,  "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"

Do you see a difference between "The human is one of us" versus "The human is as one of us"?  I ask because it makes a difference in how the next line is interpreted.  Yes, man became similar to God in knowing good and evil, but this says nothing about man having the essence of God (Love) which knew how to use that knowledge for justice.  He was "as a god" but not "a god."

Phl 2:6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,

Martin covered this nicely already.  I'll wait for your reply on that post.

John 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
22  "And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,

Who do we become one with?  Each other or God?  We are to be one with each other as the Son is one with the Father.  This does not change the fact that the oneness is then lived IN Christ as a unity of the human with each other and the divine through Him.  Because Jesus Christ is in the Father, we will be in the Father as well.  Subsistence, not a separate divine existence of our own.

Or, are you saying that Jesus was a man who attained Godhood and through Him we become God as well?

Mary Ellen

[Paul Hazelwood]

That's an entirely different thing from being equal to and being able to use Kingdom resources, power, and wisdom for our own agendas. 

I never said we would be able to use the kingdom in that manner.   How would we be able to do that if we are subject to the Father.

I am still using biblical consistancy in my points, Jesus was subject to the Father.
Yet he did not find that it took anything away from the Father by saying he was equal, all the while saying that the Father was Greater.