Dan. 7:13 "As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him."
Do you think this inspired the idea meeting the lord in the air on the last days?
Clouds are really used as a metaphor .
Jeremiah used clouds to describe the coming of the king of Assyria, 4:13 "Look! He comes up like clouds, his chariots like the whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles" woe to us, for we are ruined!"
meaning of clouds
Moderator: Moderators
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Re: meaning of clouds
Post #32[Replying to post 1 by dio9]
[center]Gods in the clouds[/center]
Sometimes, baby lambs draped in shrouds.
Sometimes, Zeus.. and lots and lots of other "gods" and "goddesses"
When I wear my sunglasses, staring at those gasses
Sometimes, I've met Dr Seuss,
I've even met fluffy angels up there,
but that's more rare.
[center]Gods in the clouds[/center]
Sometimes, I meet bunnies in the clouds.dio9 wrote:
Dan. 7:13 "As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him."
Sometimes, baby lambs draped in shrouds.
Sometimes, Zeus.. and lots and lots of other "gods" and "goddesses"
When I wear my sunglasses, staring at those gasses
Sometimes, I've met Dr Seuss,
I've even met fluffy angels up there,
but that's more rare.
Post #33
[Replying to post 30 by onewithhim]
Christianity decided long ago that Jesus was God. That's not me talking that is the tradition speaking. Believe it of not , God became Man .
Christianity decided long ago that Jesus was God. That's not me talking that is the tradition speaking. Believe it of not , God became Man .
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #35
No. Apostate "Christianity" decided finally in the FOURTH CENTURY that Jesus was God. 325 years after Christ was born on the earth. That's quite a span of time, isn't it? You see, Jesus never taught it nor did his Apostles. It was a fabrication of the Church, which was going ever more completely away from what Christ taught.dio9 wrote: [Replying to post 30 by onewithhim]
Christianity decided long ago that Jesus was God. That's not me talking that is the tradition speaking. Believe it of not , God became Man .
For the Church, tradition outweighs Scripture. Does that make it right?
.
Post #36
[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]
[center]Apostate "Christianity" : The "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Part One[/center]
I wonder why all of those learned men decided that Jesus taught his own divinity, instead of not?
It's a bit odd that you would call any Christian that doesn't agree with your theology "apostates", when the Bishops at Nicaea were anything BUT.
If anyone is an "apostate" it would be those who want to DEFY religious authority, not the other way around.
This is another weird use of language.
I've never seen the word "apostate" used in your particular manner before.
Is this a common usage among your brand of Christians?
[center]Apostate "Christianity" : The "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Part One[/center]
If you are talking about the first Council of Nicaea, yeah, that was held in 325 CE. But the idea of Jesus as a god of some sort was floating around before that.. It's just that not all the churches agreed. At the first Council of Nicaea, they agreed. Before that first council, everyone was teaching whatever they wanted to.onewithhim wrote:
Apostate "Christianity" decided finally in the FOURTH CENTURY that Jesus was God. 325 years after Christ was born on the earth. That's quite a span of time, isn't it?
I wonder why all of those learned men decided that Jesus taught his own divinity, instead of not?
There must be good reasons for people to say that Jesus is a god, back then and now. Do you know of any? Or were are all those bishops at the first Council of Nicaea a pack of imaginative liars?onewithhim wrote:
You see, Jesus never taught it nor did his Apostles. It was a fabrication of the Church, which was going ever more completely away from what Christ taught.
It's a bit odd that you would call any Christian that doesn't agree with your theology "apostates", when the Bishops at Nicaea were anything BUT.
If anyone is an "apostate" it would be those who want to DEFY religious authority, not the other way around.
This is another weird use of language.
I've never seen the word "apostate" used in your particular manner before.
Is this a common usage among your brand of Christians?
Post #37
[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]
[center]The tradition of Jesus as God
Part One[/center]
[center]The tradition of Jesus as God
Part One[/center]
So, for the Church, it was "traditional" that Jesus was a god? How far back did that tradition go?
Post #38
[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]
The church wrote the scripture. But from the earliest days the Jesus people were thinking Jesus was God. This was the main point of contention between the early Christians and Jews. Even as early as the first century Christian Gospel of John Jesus is presented as Divine. The question of tradition out weighing scripture is moot. The charge of the chief priest against Jesus was his divinity. The Gospels present Jesus as divine.
The church wrote the scripture. But from the earliest days the Jesus people were thinking Jesus was God. This was the main point of contention between the early Christians and Jews. Even as early as the first century Christian Gospel of John Jesus is presented as Divine. The question of tradition out weighing scripture is moot. The charge of the chief priest against Jesus was his divinity. The Gospels present Jesus as divine.
Post #39
[Replying to onewithhim]
"Of, from, or like God, or, a god; more than humanly excellent." Illustrated Oxford Dictionary Not God.
Even the angels are "divine." So let's not teach that "divine" is the equivalent of "diety, or, God."
Oxford?
What does Oxford know about spiritual matters?
We have 2000 years of spiritual teachers and that is long before
Oxford came into existence.
Therefore, according to those teachers, Divine in Itself is God Himself.
Divine flowing from God is divine (lower case) differentianting from the Divine in Itself; and Oxford wouldn't have a clue.
"Of, from, or like God, or, a god; more than humanly excellent." Illustrated Oxford Dictionary Not God.
Even the angels are "divine." So let's not teach that "divine" is the equivalent of "diety, or, God."
Oxford?
What does Oxford know about spiritual matters?
We have 2000 years of spiritual teachers and that is long before
Oxford came into existence.
Therefore, according to those teachers, Divine in Itself is God Himself.
Divine flowing from God is divine (lower case) differentianting from the Divine in Itself; and Oxford wouldn't have a clue.
Post #40
[Replying to post 38 by dio9]
[center]Theology is just a matter of opinion.[/center]
The only new Testament scripture we have was written anonymously, decades after the facts, and in a very literate Greek. Why do you say "church"?
I think your assessment might be controversial.
Jesus was a Jew.
Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
I'd say, raging debates.
Depending on your point of view.
I think it's safe to say that YOUR point of view is that Jesus is a god. A lot of people would agree with you. Others, not.
As an agnostic and a skeptic to all of this, I don't have a pony in the race. I'm just watching you guys argue among yourselves about something that seem to be REALLY important.
Same Scripture = Different opinions.
[center]Theology is just a matter of opinion.[/center]
What do you mean by "the church"?
The only new Testament scripture we have was written anonymously, decades after the facts, and in a very literate Greek. Why do you say "church"?
Could you source that please?
I think your assessment might be controversial.
The early Christians were all Jews.
Jesus was a Jew.
Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
You make a hundred years sound like 5 minutes. There are MANY different interpretations ( even now ) about what Scripture means, and how to interpret them.dio9 wrote:
Even as early as the first century Christian Gospel of John Jesus is presented as Divine.
I'd say, raging debates.
And also, not.dio9 wrote:
The question of tradition out weighing scripture is moot. The charge of the chief priest against Jesus was his divinity. The Gospels present Jesus as divine.
Depending on your point of view.
I think it's safe to say that YOUR point of view is that Jesus is a god. A lot of people would agree with you. Others, not.
As an agnostic and a skeptic to all of this, I don't have a pony in the race. I'm just watching you guys argue among yourselves about something that seem to be REALLY important.
Same Scripture = Different opinions.
