Jesus' Return

[William]

If there is one belief that seems to thread throughout Christian beliefs as commonly shared, it is that of the return of Jesus.

In pondering on this idea, I am left wondering as to the relevance of it as a belief to hold in today's day and age.

I can understand that up to the age of technology and especially this age of information [the information age] such a belief would not have been able to be easily regarded as overly questionable, but with our current knowledge of the universe we can understand that should the promised event happen, people would be more inclined to regard it as explainable in terms of our current knowledge.

What this means is that if an army of beings descended upon the planet, we would naturally understand these as being extraterrestrial.

In regard to that, we would also be less likely to believe any claims that they were our creators in the sense of having to proclaim them as 'gods' and their leader as 'god' or the representative thereof. In this case, Jesus.

If indeed these beings then got about 'cleaning up the world' of the corrupt war-mongering humans in positions of power, and set up a workable system in which parity becomes the normal, and gave peace a chance, there would still be no reason to worship these beings, (or the single leader) as if they were gods.

If we look at it another way - say humans were the ET and did this to another planetary species - would we not simply consider this to be something we decided we ought to do, and discourage the planets people from worshiping us?

Sure, we would not scorn their respect, and their gratefulness for us using our superior technology and power to overcome those who suppressed them and kept them engaged in systems of disparity, but there would be no reason for us to condone, let alone make it a stipulation that they ought worship us as gods.

Yet the belief through Christian doctrine clearly tells us that this is a stipulation, and those who do not agree to it will be separated from those who do.

It seems to me that there would be a problem with today's current population accepting such stipulation on the grounds that the opportunity afforded by the ET allow for the ability to build a system of parity doesn't and shouldn't require any of us worship the ET as gods. If it did, then the only reason they 'saved' us was so that they could become our new masters, and blackmail us with either accepting their terms or going without.

Q: In relation to the above, how would you respond to ET demanding you worship them as gods, and why?

[1213]

First, the Bible god does presumably demand worship. See Deuteronomy 12:4.

Second, how would you know the difference between ET and the Bible god? We don't know what either one looks like.

Deuteronomy 12:4 says:
You shall not do so to Yahweh your God.

Did you mean something else?

Bible God is spirit and love, I know what it doesnt look like.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by tam]

My faith in that is based upon evidence; upon what is heard; and also supported by what is written.

You are conflating hearsay with evidence. Your faith is not based upon evidence, but hearsay tam. Look at what you wrote.

I am not sure what is prompting this comment.

You saying that you do not regard the bible as the word of GOD.

It does not matter what any of us think about such things. It matters what is true. Christ is the Truth and as it is HIS return... whatever He has said about His return is 'better' than what anyone else thinks about His return.

And what is it that makes you believe Christ said anything about his return? Where did you get this information? Did Jesus visit you and tell you? Or,like the rest of us, did you get it from the bible?

How could creation be a result of technology?

Simulated Universe Theory

Would not technology have had to be created first?

Yes.

In which case, technology would not have been required to create.

Create this universe. Such is open to debate.

In which case, creation came about from a power that existed before technology.

Which itself might have been created. My mentioning technology had to do with the interaction of beings either from this universe or inter-dimensional, but specific to what is mentioned re their devices.

What do we know of that? Everything which had a beginning, has to be some kind of simulation.

We understand our physical reality through the act of creation. We ourselves create. We need to do this through tools.

At some point technology had to be developed in order to create.

We can understand GOD as being in a state where creation did not exist.

How the bible explains GOD shows clearly that there are things involved in relation to using the stuff of the universe in order to create things through. Devices. Technology.

In relation to the OP subject and OPQ - we know that it would be possible for an advanced species to be using advanced technology.

It does not matter what any of us think about such things. It matters what is true. Christ is the Truth and as it is HIS return... whatever He has said about His return is 'better' than what anyone else thinks about His return.

Point being, what was said about his return may or may not be attributed to him as having said it, but what was said can be seen to as easily related to ET/IDEs.

That is the point of the OP blurb.

How could creation be a result of technology? Would not technology have had to be created first? In which case, technology would not have been required to create. In which case, creation came about from a power that existed before technology.

Inherent power, rather than created power.

I think you are focusing too much on the technology as a means of distracting from the contextual blurb of the OP.

Yes, it is about 'the true nature of GOD' but only in context to beings with form claiming to represent that true nature' and how one might discern and react regarding that.

This is what one writ has said about the subject;

[font=Comic Sans MS]My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.[/font]~Excerpt from Chamber 23"One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

That appears to be the same as what you are saying re GOD, but this OP is about supposed representatives of GOD.

[Replying to post 50 by tam]

God sits on His throne.

That can only be analogy, never literal.

Christ does as well.

This is the picture Christians paint, yes. But is it an accurate and true representation of GOD, and what do humans normally do when someone on a throne is involved? The worship that person on the throne.

But Christ also shares His Kingdom with His Bride (those who belong to Him: men and women - not angels) who reign as kings and priests for a thousand years in that Kingdom.

Christ owns his bride. Since when does GOD need to own any thing? The bride is owned, but also is many and act as priests and kings over others, presumable having their own thrones to sit their bums upon.
Whom are their subjects? Who are they in reign over?

He is still their King, of course.

And what of those being reigned over by the bride? Who is their 'king'?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'proxy'.

Google is your friend.
Proxy

1 : the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another. 2 a : authority or power to act for another. b : a document giving such authority; specifically : a power of attorney authorizing a specified person to vote corporate stock. 3 : a person authorized to act for another : procurator.

Christ is the mediator between man and God.

Proxy.

But tell me this, why is it you believe that Christ is going to be represented by a being on a throne?

In relation to analogy, one could say then, that the Christ is within the individual, and enthroning that as an internal recognition - a building of the inner empire - so to speak - through deep genuine honest introspection which has no need of an outward being on a throne declaring to be 'the voice of GOD' in literal fashion, which is what the OP is about examining and questioning.

God is also not just 'titled' the Father, He is the Father.

A father requires a mother. GOD isn't called 'the father' because he IS a father. GOD also has to be everything else. The mother, the sister, the brother, the friend, the needy, the throne-less. These are no less TITLES than 'the father' but if you are to make the claim, you have to allow for the same...GOD is not only 'the father' SHE, is also 'the mother' etc...

Otherwise your image of GOD would be incomplete.

You might want to define what you mean by worship.

You might want to go back through the thread and see those definitions already offered.

The definition I gave was the generic one. Some Christians have said this is not what worship is, and I have seen these definitions are just as questionable, and said so.

If you mean love, praise, kneel before, obey... then yes. Why? BECAUSE of love; because I love Him, because He loves me and acts/teaches for my/our good, because He deserves these things (He gave His life - twice - the first time at the creation of the world, and the second time to redeem us from death); because He has more than proven His love - for His Father, for His bride, and for creation. And because He is the RIGHTFUL heir of all things; God created all things FOR HIS SON.


Does that answer your question?

Well let's see what it answers.

The OPQ was:

Q: In relation to the above, [the OP blurb] how would you respond to ET demanding you worship them as gods, and why?

Your answer; "If you mean love, praise, kneel before, obey... then yes."

And 'why?'

Your answer; "BECAUSE of love; because I love Him, because He loves me and acts/teaches for my/our good, because He deserves these things (He gave His life - twice - the first time at the creation of the world, and the second time to redeem us from death); because He has more than proven His love - for His Father, for His bride, and for creation. And because He is the RIGHTFUL heir of all things; God created all things FOR HIS SON. "

The OP sets the tone re the return of Jesus. You are saying that you would worship the leader of the ET/IDEs if they demanded such from you - or more to the point, simply because they have shown themselves to exist and claimed to be from GOD and the leader claims to be Jesus.

Obviously the reasons given also come with the promise of reward and you will expect to be one of those who make up the bride and will be a king or a priest? Indeed, this is one of the reasons you love Jesus?

Just because a being is technologically advanced, does not mean those beings are God or His Son.

That is basically what the OP is saying tam. Its appears that your faith in the stories and how they are interpreted means you will expect things to go a certain way before you can be sure. It is not just a case of beings fulfilling prophesies and making good on their promises. It is about their claiming to do so as proxy to GOD, and in that, they are saying GOD deserves worship and it will be done externally by our King being on a throne and all humans expected to worship him as GOD requires such, because "GOD is on a throne, requiring worship."

If they [the angels] do not demand to be worshiped, what is it they are pointing to which they do demand should be worshiped?

God. Their God (and Creator) who is also our God.

And 'creator'?

Point being tam, we are told we are created by these beings, and that is questionable.

We may have been lead down the garden path on that one. The truth might easily be, that we we never created.

If GOD is the eternal, and we are all together aspects of GOD, then - like GOD - we were never created.

Our forms on the other hand, are created. This is why and how one self identifies determines how one interprets and understands 'things'. GOD is not a 'thing' and neither are any aspects of GOD, 'things'. Are you a 'thing' or an aspect of GOD?

It appears to me that this is one of the greatest difficulties the church had in conveying the idea of GOD being everywhere, while maintaining human beings were separate from GOD. Perhaps original sin is the belief one is separate from GOD?

There is no reason why GOD would create beings just to have them worship and love him as great and powerful etc.

However, one can understand the idea that species (A) could put another species (B) into a situation where (B) was unaware they had always existed, and then (A) could pretend to be the creator of (B). This is a possibility which the OP is investigating.

If (A) were genuine and wanted (B) to learn the true nature of self but had to do so in a manner which forced (A) to manifest before (B), then one would expect (A) NOT to play the role of creator in relation to GOD.

Rather (A) would tell (B) that they were not created and that (A) had only created the universe and the human forms, but (A) did not create the consciousness which (B) is. ALL Consciousness derives from GOD, and is not - and never can be - apart from GOD. Only from the true knowledge of GOD, and in that..well... that is the question right? 'WHO' is GOD? What is the true nature of GOD?

Is IT some THING to worship, or is IT some ONE we all come from and are sourced IN?

Your beliefs specifically opt for being created and leads to the dangerous assumption that if GOD requires worship and these beings are your creator and also require worship, (or at least their King does) then worship them (Jesus on the throne) you will.

I do not think we have the same definition of faith. Faith is not blind belief, based on no evidence. Faith is based upon evidence, based upon the things heard (That is why there are warnings against hardening one's heart against His voice).

As already asked in this post tam, where is this voice 'heard' Where is this evidence 'seen'?
Are you going to tell us 'the bible'?

Is it then to be said that not believing the bible is 'hardening ones heart against 'the bible'?

Even if that were the charge, I understand in questioning the bible, I am opening my mind, and my heart is no less soft for that.

What if He is your Creator? Are you suggesting that the true God would lie?

As the OP expresses...I am suggesting a false GOD can indeed lie, even about being my 'creator'. See further back for more emphasis on this idea.

Angels were also created by God and His Son. They are not equal to God or His Son, so one does not worship them by proxy simply because one worships God.

They also serve God (who is their God and our God).

What you are not getting is that when you speak of The King, Kings, Priests, Angels and Kingdom, you speak to a system.

A system which has parts, means that the parts work proxy in relation to each other. Angels can act as proxy to the King. This in itself does not mean that the claims are truthful and that is the point of the OP...how does one discern the truth from the false? Faith in "the bible tells me so" is not good enough for that.

You are free to do or not do as you choose. What if you were confronted with the knowledge that you have been wrong? What if you were confronted with the knowledge that you do indeed have a Creator?

In what form would such knowledge be able to be shown?

Let me answer your question as best I can. Because I cannot conceive of any form in which could SHOW me that I am created I will just assume that somehow it is able to be done and I have thus been shown and what I saw, is undeniable truth.

Then I will have knowledge which I previously didn't have, so it would not be a case of requiring FAITH.

In that, If my creators then told me that I was required by them to worship them as GOD, through the image of their leader, I would need to be shown WHY they would expect that of me.

This because, it would run against all reason. If I were to create a sentient being, I would not require it to worship me as its GOD while I sat on a throne playing the part of that GOD.
It makes no sense. It is non sensible.

As per the OP blurb, my answer is simple.

I would say to the King on the throne calling himself 'Jesus, son of GOD' that I appreciate very much what he and his warriors have done to remove the problem of disparity so that I could help build a system of parity.

I would tell him that I have a few ideas on how to do this and would be keen on expressing these in the hope that I might get a directive position.

I would tell Jesus that I cannot accept the idea of worshiping him on a throne as the representative of GOD because my understanding is that GOD requires no worship. It is good enough for GOD that I simply express my authentic feelings of appreciation to GODs inmost presence within me and others, and I broadcast my 'worship' unfailingly into that realm. I would assume Jesus would understand this perfectly.

Is the above a type of negotiating? Perhaps, but then I also understand that things are negotiable.

I personally don't see how there would be a problem with this approach. But to be fair, I wouldn't anticipate it...the way Christians are anticipating it. I am just showing that one's beliefs will determine outcomes and in that, not all outcomes will be the same. YOU might well be expected to worship Jesus on a throne while that would not be expected of me.

What if YOU are wrong? What if YOU were never created?

[tam]

Peace to you William,

Part 1

[Replying to post 49 by tam]

My faith in that is based upon evidence; upon what is heard; and also supported by what is written.

You are conflating hearsay with evidence. Your faith is not based upon evidence, but hearsay tam. Look at what you wrote.

I mentioned no hearsay as a basis for my faith.

I am not sure what is prompting this comment.

You saying that you do not regard the bible as the word of GOD.

I still do not see what prompted your comment. Did I not quote from the bible to show you that angels (who serve Christ and God) do not demand worship of themselves and in fact would not accept it?

It does not matter what any of us think about such things. It matters what is true. Christ is the Truth and as it is HIS return... whatever He has said about His return is 'better' than what anyone else thinks about His return.

And what is it that makes you believe Christ said anything about his return? Where did you get this information? Did Jesus visit you and tell you? Or,like the rest of us, did you get it from the bible?

It is true that I have read about it in the bible, though I tend to take what is written with a grain of salt until or unless my Lord confirms the truth of the matter. But my Lord is alive and as a living being, He also speaks. So yes, He has also spoken of His return.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. John 10:27

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:16


As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1John 2:27


I do not believe these things because they are written in a book; I believe them because a) I believe Christ and b) because I too hear the voice of my Lord, as one of His sheep.

And of course there are examples of others having testified to Him speaking to them (as the Spirit) in what is written as well:

The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Acts 8:29

**
In Damascus, there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"

"Yes Lord," he answered.

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." (Acts 9:10,11... and it continues)

**
There is Peter's vision telling him that he should eat foods that he considered unclean, and then after his vision:

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit (Christ) said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." (Acts 10: 9-20)

**
There are of course multiple examples from Paul. The entire book of Revelation is from Christ to John. There is a warning against hardening our hearts if we hear His voice.

As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Hebrews 3:15

Then of course there are the examples of Abraham, who heard, Noah, who heard, the prophets, who heard, Joseph, who heard, Daniel, who heard, etc, etc. Their faith is based upon the evidence of what they heard.

How could creation be a result of technology?

Simulated Universe Theory

Would not technology have had to be created first?

Yes.

In which case, technology would not have been required to create.

Create this universe. Such is open to debate.

No, follow the logic. You agree that technology would had to have been created, therefore, the power to create technology would not have come FROM technology. The power to create would have been inherent.

Yes?

In which case, creation came about from a power that existed before technology.

Which itself might have been created.

William, go back to the source, the first... and answer these question in that light.

We understand our physical reality through the act of creation. We ourselves create. We need to do this through tools.

Not true. We can procreate without the use of tools. Some life procreates asexually. So we can indeed understand creation without the use of tools.

At some point technology had to be developed in order to create.

That makes no sense William. If technology was created, then it did not need to be developed before creation could occur. Are you saying God could bring 'tools' into being without the use of tools, but not creation?

We can understand GOD as being in a state where creation did not exist.

The creation, sure.

How the bible explains GOD shows clearly that there are things involved in relation to using the stuff of the universe in order to create things through. Devices. Technology.

The bible does not say anything about devices and technology being needed to use the stuff of the universe to create things through. The bible does state that all things came from God through Christ (the Light).

It does not matter what any of us think about such things. It matters what is true. Christ is the Truth and as it is HIS return... whatever He has said about His return is 'better' than what anyone else thinks about His return.

Point being, what was said about his return may or may not be attributed to him as having said it, but what was said can be seen to as easily related to ET/IDEs.

If you want to push this ET/IDE advanced being - advanced technology theory, why are you trying and use Christ to do so?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

[Replying to post 52 by William]

Part 2

[Replying to post 50 by tam]

God sits on His throne.

That can only be analogy, never literal.

As a seat of authority; rulership.

Christ does as well.

This is the picture Christians paint, yes.

That is what CHRIST said.

But is it an accurate and true representation of GOD,

As mentioned earlier, you are using Christ to prop up your theory/theology, and yet at the same time you are expecting people to discard much of what He said and taught.

This might be why you don't get as much of a response from Christians as you would like.

and what do humans normally do when someone on a throne is involved? The worship that person on the throne.

Do they?

Trump "sits on a throne" (and while an argument could be made - perhaps more tongue in cheek - that some of his supporters worship him, most do not.)

But Christ also shares His Kingdom with His Bride (those who belong to Him: men and women - not angels) who reign as kings and priests for a thousand years in that Kingdom.

Christ owns his bride. Since when does GOD need to own any thing? The bride is owned, but also is many and act as priests and kings over others, presumable having their own thrones to sit their bums upon.

Who says God NEEDS to own anything?

But who says God CANNOT or DOES NOT own anything?

When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song: Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them into a kingdom, priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth. Rev 5:9

He is still their King, of course.

And what of those being reigned over by the bride? Who is their 'king'?

Christ.


The bride reigns (and is not worshiped) with Christ in His Kingdom, but not as rulers in this world rule (by lording themselves above others). But by serving.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'proxy'.

Google is your friend.
Proxy

1 : the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another. 2 a : authority or power to act for another. b : a document giving such authority; specifically : a power of attorney authorizing a specified person to vote corporate stock. 3 : a person authorized to act for another : procurator.

Christ is the mediator between man and God.

Proxy.

Would you still consider it proxy if the Bride is permitted to come before the Father, Himself (through Christ and with His permission)?

But tell me this, why is it you believe that Christ is going to be represented by a being on a throne?

The question does not make sense to me.

Christ is not represented by a being on a throne. He IS a being on a throne.

In relation to analogy, one could say then, that the Christ is within the individual,

This part of your paragraph is true - of both Christ and God. Christ and God are in a person by means of holy spirit (the breath, blood, seed of God - the water of life that Christ pours out from His innermost parts, as His Father has given to Him without end)


The rest of your paragraph is nonsensical to me:

and enthroning that as an internal recognition - a building of the inner empire - so to speak - through deep genuine honest introspection which has no need of an outward being on a throne declaring to be 'the voice of GOD' in literal fashion, which is what the OP is about examining and questioning.

**

You might want to define what you mean by worship.

You might want to go back through the thread and see those definitions already offered.

The definition I gave was the generic one. Some Christians have said this is not what worship is, and I have seen these definitions are just as questionable, and said so.

I went back and found the following from you:

- bow down to the demands
- bowing down and acknowledging Christ as Lord
- Generically, getting on ones knees is a signature of worshiping
- immediate and total submission (post 41)

Basically bowing down is what you have stated.

I am curious where you see that anyone is forced to do these things? Rather than compelled by the truth and/or by love (or in some other cases by fear or self-interest)?

If you mean love, praise, kneel before, obey... then yes. Why? BECAUSE of love; because I love Him, because He loves me and acts/teaches for my/our good, because He deserves these things (He gave His life - twice - the first time at the creation of the world, and the second time to redeem us from death); because He has more than proven His love - for His Father, for His bride, and for creation. And because He is the RIGHTFUL heir of all things; God created all things FOR HIS SON.


Does that answer your question?

Well let's see what it answers.

The OPQ was:

Q: In relation to the above, [the OP blurb] how would you respond to ET demanding you worship them as gods, and why?

Your answer; "If you mean love, praise, kneel before, obey... then yes."

That was not a response to the OPQ. This was me responding to 'would I worship my Lord'.

I then explained why:

Your answer; "BECAUSE of love; because I love Him, because He loves me and acts/teaches for my/our good, because He deserves these things (He gave His life - twice - the first time at the creation of the world, and the second time to redeem us from death); because He has more than proven His love - for His Father, for His bride, and for creation. And because He is the RIGHTFUL heir of all things; God created all things FOR HIS SON. "

**

Obviously the reasons given also come with the promise of reward and you will expect to be one of those who make up the bride and will be a king or a priest?

I would be immensely grateful to receive eternal life, to be loved, to enter into the Kingdom as either king-priest OR subject.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons you love Jesus?

Christ (not "Jesus" since that was never His name).

I love Him because He loves me; I love Him because He is Truth and I love truth; I love Him for having given His life for us (not even just once, but twice), including for me and for my loved ones; I love Him for His mercy, His service, His patience, His compassion, His love and loyalty to His Father; His forgiveness, His word that He always keeps. I love Him because of who He is.



(might need to respond to the rest in a part three a bit later)

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

[Replying to post 52 by William]

Peace to you!

Part 3

We may have been lead down the garden path on that one. The truth might easily be, that we we never created.

We can say that the truth might be anything we want. I would need a reason and evidence to accept the claim.

If GOD is the eternal, and we are all together aspects of GOD, then - like GOD - we were never created.

I tend not to base my faith and understanding on 'if'. Also, what do you mean by 'aspect' of God?

There is no reason why GOD would create beings just to have them worship and love him as great and powerful etc.

God created out of LOVE. Worship of Him comes also from LOVE (and truth).

However, one can understand the idea that species (A) could put another species (B) into a situation where (B) was unaware they had always existed, and then (A) could pretend to be the creator of (B). This is a possibility which the OP is investigating.

If (A) were genuine and wanted (B) to learn the true nature of self but had to do so in a manner which forced (A) to manifest before (B), then one would expect (A) NOT to play the role of creator in relation to GOD.

Rather (A) would tell (B) that they were not created and that (A) had only created the universe and the human forms, but (A) did not create the consciousness which (B) is.

I understand the details of your scenario. But this scenario is all based upon many 'ifs'... and none seem to be based upon what Christ said. Since the OP is about HIS return, should it not at least be based in the things He said about His return? If not, then why use Him in some 'et' return scenario at all?

Your beliefs specifically opt for being created and leads to the dangerous assumption that if GOD requires worship and these beings are your creator and also require worship, (or at least their King does) then worship them (Jesus on the throne) you will.

Who are you referring to as 'these beings'? And what is the danger that you are referring to, that you see?

I do not think we have the same definition of faith. Faith is not blind belief, based on no evidence. Faith is based upon evidence, based upon the things heard (That is why there are warnings against hardening one's heart against His voice).

As already asked in this post tam, where is this voice 'heard' Where is this evidence 'seen'?
Are you going to tell us 'the bible'?

I did not mention evidence 'seen', and no that voice is not 'the bible'. I answered that in part one.

Is it then to be said that not believing the bible is 'hardening ones heart against 'the bible'?

No.

There is no warning against hardening one's heart against 'the bible' (not even IN the bible). The warning is about not hardening your heart if you hear His voice.

What if He is your Creator? Are you suggesting that the true God would lie?

As the OP expresses...I am suggesting a false GOD can indeed lie, even about being my 'creator'. See further back for more emphasis on this idea.

Obviously a false god can lie. But you did not answer my question.

Angels were also created by God and His Son. They are not equal to God or His Son, so one does not worship them by proxy simply because one worships God.

They also serve God (who is their God and our God).

What you are not getting is that when you speak of The King, Kings, Priests, Angels and Kingdom, you speak to a system.

Why would you think I do not get that? That does not dispute what I said. As well, the point was that we do not worship angels by proxy just because we worship God. See again, the warning not to bow down and worship the angel in revelation.

A system which has parts, means that the parts work proxy in relation to each other. Angels can act as proxy to the King. This in itself does not mean that the claims are truthful and that is the point of the OP...how does one discern the truth from the false? Faith in "the bible tells me so" is not good enough for that.

I agree. But that is not the answer that I gave you.

You are free to do or not do as you choose. What if you were confronted with the knowledge that you have been wrong? What if you were confronted with the knowledge that you do indeed have a Creator?

In what form would such knowledge be able to be shown?

Let me answer your question as best I can. Because I cannot conceive of any form in which could SHOW me that I am created I will just assume that somehow it is able to be done and I have thus been shown and what I saw, is undeniable truth.

Then I will have knowledge which I previously didn't have, so it would not be a case of requiring FAITH.

In that, If my creators then told me that I was required by them to worship them as GOD, through the image of their leader, I would need to be shown WHY they would expect that of me.

Oh, sorry, I am not referring to how you would react if anyone demanded you worship 'them' or even God. I was simply asking about if you were confronted with the knowledge that you do indeed have a Creator.

As per the OP blurb, my answer is simple.

I would say to the King on the throne calling himself 'Jesus, son of GOD' that I appreciate very much what he and his warriors have done to remove the problem of disparity so that I could help build a system of parity.

I would tell him that I have a few ideas on how to do this and would be keen on expressing these in the hope that I might get a directive position.

I would tell Jesus that I cannot accept the idea of worshiping him on a throne as the representative of GOD because my understanding is that GOD requires no worship. It is good enough for GOD that I simply express my authentic feelings of appreciation to GODs inmost presence within me and others, and I broadcast my 'worship' unfailingly into that realm. I would assume Jesus would understand this perfectly.

Is the above a type of negotiating? Perhaps, but then I also understand that things are negotiable.

Things may be negotiable, requests may be made, etc.

But truth is not negotiable.

(thank you for taking the time to write that out though and explain your position)

What if YOU are wrong? What if YOU were never created?

I would acknowledge my wrong and seek to learn what is true and align myself with that.

I would not rely upon my own understanding (but I do not rely upon my own understanding even now; that would be foolish of me, for what do I know?) God sent us His Son - Wisdom - to teach us and to guide us into all truth (and into life). I rely upon Him.


Peace again to you William,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

I would not rely upon my own understanding (but I do not rely upon my own understanding even now; that would be foolish of me, for what do I know?) God sent us His Son - Wisdom - to teach us and to guide us into all truth (and into life). I rely upon Him.

The fact is you do rely on your own understanding. You rely on your understanding of "Him" which in fact isn't based on "Him" but rather your understanding. Your claim is self contradictory.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I would not rely upon my own understanding (but I do not rely upon my own understanding even now; that would be foolish of me, for what do I know?) God sent us His Son - Wisdom - to teach us and to guide us into all truth (and into life). I rely upon Him.

The fact is you do rely on your own understanding. You rely on your understanding of "Him" which in fact isn't based on "Him" but rather your understanding. Your claim is self contradictory.

To you, my claim appears to be self-contradictory, because you do not accept that there is a 'Him" to be known or to whom one can listen. So this is an issue for you.

But this is not an issue for me. I know the difference between relying upon my own understanding and relying upon my Lord. I have done both.

Peace again to you!

[Tcg]

Peace to you,

I would not rely upon my own understanding (but I do not rely upon my own understanding even now; that would be foolish of me, for what do I know?) God sent us His Son - Wisdom - to teach us and to guide us into all truth (and into life). I rely upon Him.

The fact is you do rely on your own understanding. You rely on your understanding of "Him" which in fact isn't based on "Him" but rather your understanding. Your claim is self contradictory.

To you, my claim appears to be self-contradictory,

It appears to be because it is. Not surprisingly, you have failed to address the facts I have given that prove this to be true.

[tam]

[Replying to post 58 by Tcg]

You gave your opinion, you did not give a fact. You may disagree, but I am not going to continue a back and forth 'yes, you did... no you didn't' on the matter.


Peace again to you.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 58 by Tcg]

You gave your opinion, you did not give a fact. You may disagree, but I am not going to continue a back and forth 'yes, you did... no you didn't' on the matter.

Of course I did. You are a human are you not? If you claim to be something other than human then we will need to enter into a different nature of discussion.

Given that you haven't claimed this, your assertions are those based on human understanding. If you are claiming to be something other than human, please state so clearly.