Making False Images of The Creator

[William]

From the thread The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

Where would anyone get the idea that God "breathed himself into people?" He is too great and magnificent to be reduced to being inside any human being. If anyone thinks differently, they have a very skewed view of the Creator of this universe.

That is The Great Paradox which humans have been debating since the invention of theism...

...what does "One With Him" actually mean?

And both ideas [{a}We are are separate from The Creator or {b} We are particles of The Creators Consciousness] have their own rational and appear logical to that end[answering said question].
The only difference of significance is that {a} "We are are separate from The Creator" cannot accommodate {b} ["We are particles of The Creators Consciousness"], whereas realization of {b} still accommodates {a} in the sense that {a} is regarded as [usually] the initial step one has to take in order to then - perhaps - realize {b}.

...what does "One With Him" actually mean? According to {a} it means?
It means positions [1]&[2] are rational if thought so by those who believe they are {a} "Separate from The Creator" as they have decided to bow to that belief as "The Whole Truth".

...what does "One With Him" actually mean? According to {b} it means?
It means positions [1]&[2] are based upon part truth rather than whole truth if thought so by those who believe they are {b} "We are particles of The Creators Consciousness" as they have decided to realize the significance of such a thought as being that much closer to "The Whole Truth" than {a} [1]&[2] could ever be...the realization particularly being that there is more to the overall story than meets the eye.

Problematic with those in position {a} [positions [1]&[2]] are evident in the behaviors of those who support said positions in relation to this current reality experience [Life on Earth] - perhaps because they actively resist realization of {b} on the assumption that they "could not possible behave as if they were {b}" so at best, settle for {a} as it is [at least] a starting position for a potential future moment of realization...

...when the individual is sufficiently ready for the transformation of their understanding.

Meantime, information is continuing to come, which has the potential to assist the individual with said transformation...

The image of The Creator that most Christians have adopted is one which couldn't possibly stoop to "being human" [as in the comment "Where would anyone get the idea that God "breathed himself into people?"] because the image held by the questioner is that The Creator "is too great and magnificent to be reduced to being inside any human being." and follows that, with the unsupported assertion that "If anyone thinks differently, they have a very skewed view of the Creator of this universe."

Why should one think that a being who created this universe must be vainglorious and so utterly contemptuous of the creation [specifically the human form] that said Creator would assign other - separate - consciousnesses [beings] into human form It considers somehow unworthy of Its self experiencing?
So we have an image of a kind of mad scientist mucking with things he has little to no understanding of, just to lord it over "them".

I do not see in the creation any such hint of such an image of The Creator.

What I do see is human fabrication - how most humans might behave if they were in similar position as The Creator - a false image [graven] which is created and worshiped by humans who cannot [will not?] accept that any Creator would lower Itself ["Himself" as Christians would say] so much as to be "a little lower than the angels" as the mythology has it imagined.

How indeed does the Creator create Life outside of Itself, and then deem that Life to be "less than" - even if it was created that way - where is the life The Creator used to animate the creation with being sourced, if NOT from The Creator itself?

Such as, logically this [sourcing Life elsewhere] is an unnecessary edition which is placed into the human psyche as a means of attempting to hold fast and high and almighty false image in such minds...enthroned as it is upon the imaginations of all those who believe such.



The catch phrase "We are not worthy" is a significant mantra in its ability to help the individual to resist realization that they are a particle of The Creators Consciousness.

Could this type of expression be happening because the images Christians have created of The Creator are false [therefore 'skewed'] and as such, not a trustworthy source in which to find a wholesome representation of "The Creator of This Universe"?

Q: Given the above, how can any image of The Creator of The Universe be a True Image?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #19]

If you do not know what it is about vainglorious imagery in Biblical writ Tammy, I do not understand why you bothered to post in this thread.

To state the following in response to the claim that God cannot be in any man (or that He would not 'stoop' to being in any man):

He can breathe part of Himself - holy spirit (which is the breath/blood/seed of God) into people, thereby making them His children. Similar to a child sharing the same blood as his/her parent. God breathed into Adam, and Adam became a living being (life - holy spirit - was now in Adam), and also a son. Christ breathed holy spirit onto the apostles (making them Christians; anointed ones; children of God; life - holy spirit - also now being in them). That same holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost (from God through Christ), and again is shown to be poured out on Cornelius and his family, and is poured out upon anyone who is anointed, whom Christ chooses.


I added to that in the previous post to Pinseeker.


You didn't comment on it, you just seem to be taking exception to the statement that Christ is the Image of God.

Your making statements about Christ are without any substances. They are just words which appear to proclaim obscure ideas, which is why you were asked to clarify what you mean by such phrases as "None are a true image - except for Christ" to the question "How can any image of The Creator of The Universe be a True Image?"

I clarified.

I will respond more specifically to the question though:

An image of the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) can be true, if the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) SENT the One who HE (the Creator) knows IS His image, and who He (the Creator) knows does perfectly represent Him.

You have made a claim that there is at least one Image which can be regarded as True, as an answer to the question. Yet this reader asks you for more information and you answer with more obscurity.

If you do not understand that Christ is the image of His God and Father (just as He has said), then so be it. I don't know how to be more clear. I mean, this is the theology, doctrine, and dogma part of the forum:

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

When asked to describe the 'true image' you claim exists, you simply state "He Himself" as if that is any coherent answer.

You add to that "His words came from the Father, taught to Him by His Father. His actions, His nature, reflect the Father." but don't say how you know this information is true.

You seem to be agreeing that I did answer your question (since you admit that I 'add to that'), but you wanted to add another question, as to how I know this information is true. I know this information is true because a) Christ speaks only truth and He has never lied to me; I hear only truth in His words... and b) He is alive and He does speak - living beings speak - which means He also spoke truth about His resurrection. Or He would not be alive today to speak. Since all He has ever said is true, including about His resurrection, when He says that to know Him is to know His Father, I can also know that is true.

I know that His promises are true (such as the promise at John 14:23), because He kept this promise to me.

You then take a part of this information you claim is true, and write; "For example: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice.""

And then explain how you know this is true because "We can know that is what God desires because a) Christ told us, and b) because Christ is Himself merciful."

This example was part of explaining and elaborating on what it means for Christ to be the image of God.

You write "I did not invent Christ. He is not an image that I made. I simply believe Him, and look/listen to Him to know His Father, as He has said to do." but how is that helpful in answering the question put forth in the OP?

I was simply responding to something you said. You spoke of 'my images' of Christ, and when I said that 'it is not my image', you said 'of course it is'. The above is a response to that.

I think ideas create images and images create ideas. I do not deny that I present ideas about The Creator - here on this forum. As the OPQ asks. "Q: Given the above, how can any image of The Creator of The Universe be a True Image?"

I do not think ideas can create a true image of the Creator, because man's ideas are just that: HIS ideas, HIS thoughts, HIS musings... and these often contradict and/or form God in his own image, according to what he wants, rather than according to what is true.

My ideas always accompany reasons for why I think The Creator [as presented by religions] are false and why - IF there is a Creator of this Universe, THEN what in nature can we see which would give us clues to The Creators overall personality.

What makes you think nature (as it currently is) accurately presents the true image of God? There is much death and illness and suffering in nature as well. (Romans 8:20, 21)

In that, The Universe is there to see - one can "look/listen" to the Universe but this idea you present that this "Christ" image presented to you which you "look/listen" to, is not there to see and observe and obtain information which gives us clear certainty that your claim that "None are a true image - except for Christ" to the question "How can any image of The Creator of The Universe be a True Image?" is indeed a

true

claim.

Christ is there to hear, though, and faith is based upon what is heard. So one can obtain information (truth) from Him, even now.

Until you can provide us with those details, I see no reason to abandon the OP as a debunked thing.

Which part of the OP? I didn't set out to debunk the OP either (I'm not even sure which part you are referring to, it is a big OP); just to remind the reader that Christ is the Image of God; that God can be indeed dwell in man, via holy spirit.


Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #22]

If you do not understand that Christ is the image of His God and Father (just as He has said), then so be it. I don't know how to be more clear. I mean, this is the theology, doctrine, and dogma part of the forum:

The question is still relevant Tammy. Unless you are declaring that the God-entity as imaged throughout the Bible is not to be confused with The Creator of this Universe. Is that what you are getting at?

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I am not asking you to prove that what the Bible say's is true Tammy. I am debating certain Christians and their theologies which are based upon their particular interpretation of Biblical script, and one is free to question said interpretations and ask the claimant who uses said interpretations to supply evidence that their interpretation is true. Don't conflate that with "first proving that the Bible is true".

And remember, it is not I or others whom question Christians in this particular forum regarding their interpretations of Biblical script, who created the need for this to be done. It is Christians themselves, who cannot seem to agree with each other on correct interpretation of biblical script, who make that a necessary thing for us to do.

I do not think ideas can create a true image of the Creator, because man's ideas are just that: HIS ideas, HIS thoughts, HIS musings... and these often contradict and/or form God in his own image, according to what he wants, rather than according to what is true.

Agreed. That is why I question you about this Tammy. I include your own interpretations creating ideas which you think are true images of what you believe Christ to be in relation to you. Ordinarily this would be acceptable enough if it wasn't for the fact that you tend to come across as being a "true" representative of "what a Christian is/should be" and in that, give the impression that you have some connect with Christ which others hereabouts - including your fellow Christians, do not have. This - quite naturally - should make any seeker of truthfulness question the validity of such claims and ask you - quite reasonably - to explain your methods of connection in more detail than you currently have done.
Rather, you resist doing so, which only adds to the suspicion that your are no more a 'true' Christian than others you point fingers at, nor are you any more closer to 'the truth' than me or anyone else on this message board.

What makes you think nature (as it currently is) accurately presents the true image of God? There is much death and illness and suffering in nature as well.

That is the overall point. It isn't about dressing an image up in cute and cuddly and saying "Behold! The Creator of Our Universe!"
Obviously The Creator made nature that way.
Why should we hide away the ugly bits and pretend it wasn't The Creator who made them - or for that matter, create another image and call it "Satan" and attribute all those ugly bits to that entity? Essentially all that does is give the impression that their are actually 2 Creators involved in the creation of this One Verse [Universe].

Humans have obviously being doing this since way before the invention of Christianity/organized religion but the question remains "Why?" Why do we need to view nature as "Good and Evil" in the first place?

Christ is there to hear, though, and faith is based upon what is heard. So one can obtain information (truth) from Him, even now.

The question remains unanswered Tammy. HOW is Christ "heard"? So far all we can tell is that some type of 'hearing' is achieved through reading Biblical Script and interpreting said script, but as is evident, the interpretations are so different that we have Christians endlessly debating in argument as to "who has the right interpretations" so in that we cannot say "Christ is seen to be heard in this manner - using that technique [reading the Bible] or listening to those who make claims that they "hear Christs voice".

To claim that is the way Christ is "heard" only really amounts to saying "Christ is confusion and argument and disagreement" and - as we know - Christians have spent far more time living by the sword than not...so much so that they often confuse "The Sword" with "The Truth", only adding to the confusion of Christ.

[PinSeeker]

Peace to you,

JEHOVAH is never depicted as residing inside a human(s).

Oh, but He is:

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in Him, Who is the head of all rule and authority."

Yes (... well not "Jehovah"; but JAH, the God and Father of Christ, yes).


Christ says this as well:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.


Peace again!

Yes, thank you for that, and for bolding the key parts of it. The Father has Christ in Him, just as the Father is in Christ. Verse 21 is key in understanding the Father's and the Son's equality in deity and that they are indeed one and the same in substance. Paul knew that full well in all his letters. In John 17, Christ is praying for all that the Father has given Him, for the Father's Elect, that they would experience the same oneness that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) have -- not as Creator, of course, but as creatures. And one day that will indeed be the case. Yes, the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are indeed one in substance. They have specific roles in the Godhead, for sure, but They are one, together and with the Holy Spirit comprising the triune Jehovah. As the great J.I. Packer said:

"God saves sinners. God -- the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves -- does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners -- men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners -- and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity..."

All praise and glory be to our triune Jehovah.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #22]

If you do not understand that Christ is the image of His God and Father (just as He has said), then so be it. I don't know how to be more clear. I mean, this is the theology, doctrine, and dogma part of the forum:

The question is still relevant Tammy. Unless you are declaring that the God-entity as imaged throughout the Bible is not to be confused with The Creator of this Universe. Is that what you are getting at?

Sorry, what question are you referring to?

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I am not asking you to prove that what the Bible say's is true Tammy.

The relevant part of the quote which I bolded for emphasis in my previous post was the word Christian. If you do not understand that Christ is the Image of God, and the explanations that I have given to date, what more can I do about that?

I do not think ideas can create a true image of the Creator, because man's ideas are just that: HIS ideas, HIS thoughts, HIS musings... and these often contradict and/or form God in his own image, according to what he wants, rather than according to what is true.

Agreed. That is why I question you about this Tammy. I include your own interpretations creating ideas which you think are true images of what you believe Christ to be in relation to you.

You include what you think are my interpretations; and you reject when I tell you point-blank that I am not presenting an interpretation. I am not even suggesting anything that a Christian could disagree with: Christ is the image of God. I was surprised no one thought to mention that truth on a thread titled 'making false images of the Creator' (unless I missed it), so I mentioned it.

Regardless, you must include yourself in this, right? That the 'image' you present of the Creator are your ideas, your thoughts, your musings, your interpretations?

Ordinarily this would be acceptable enough if it wasn't for the fact that you tend to come across as being a "true" representative of "what a Christian is/should be" and in that, give the impression that you have some connect with Christ which others hereabouts - including your fellow Christians, do not have.

I suspect a person having a connection with Christ is only unacceptable to those who a) do not have it, or b) do not think anyone else can have it (or deserves to have it) if they do not have it themselves (which tends to come across as arrogance and jealousy).

As for the rest, I don't even know how to comment on that. Would it be more acceptable if I appeared to somehow show what a Christian should NOT be? What a Christian should or should not be (when referring to deeds at least) is between that person and Christ. Other than the fact that a Christian is a disciple of Christ who is anointed with holy spirit. If you don't like me saying that, so be it. But I'm not going to water down the truth - or change it altogether - just so it is more palatable to someone else.

This - quite naturally - should make any seeker of truthfulness question the validity of such claims and ask you - quite reasonably - to explain your methods of connection in more detail than you currently have done.

You mean like here (on the thread, does Christ speak and how?):

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=28577

Rather, you resist doing so,

Considering that you and I had a discussion on that very thread (linked above), I don't see how you can rightfully accuse me of not explaining anything.

which only adds to the suspicion that your are no more a 'true' Christian than others you point fingers at, nor are you any more closer to 'the truth' than me or anyone else on this message board.

I wasn't aware that I was personally on trial on this thread, or even that I had pointed fingers at someone on this thread. When exactly did this become about me, William? If there is something untrue about the content of what I said, then point it out and we can discuss that. If not, then why are you accusing me to begin with?

What makes you think nature (as it currently is) accurately presents the true image of God? There is much death and illness and suffering in nature as well.

That is the overall point. It isn't about dressing an image up in cute and cuddly and saying "Behold! The Creator of Our Universe!"

You have not answered the question. What makes you think nature (as it currently is) accurately presents the true image of God.

Obviously The Creator made nature that way.
Why should we hide away the ugly bits and pretend it wasn't The Creator who made them - or for that matter, create another image and call it "Satan" and attribute all those ugly bits to that entity? Essentially all that does is give the impression that their are actually 2 Creators involved in the creation of this One Verse [Universe].

You're assuming here that the one called Satan is invented, rather than that he is a real being. Him being a real being also does not mean that he is a creator. Creation can be subject to frustration (get messed up), without the being(s) messing it up being creators. If someone else build a house, I could cause havoc in/to that house without being the builder of that house. People harm the environment as well, that does not mean that they somehow co-created the earth.

Humans have obviously being doing this since way before the invention of Christianity/organized religion but the question remains "Why?" Why do we need to view nature as "Good and Evil" in the first place?

I don't view nature as good and evil. Nature just adapts to the conditions it is subjected to (which is a pretty awesome trait). But death (bad) is an enemy that nature/creation has been temporarily subjected TO (including sickness and suffering). Death is an enemy to be defeated. And there is certainly bad in the world: people harming others and themselves; people getting sick and dying and suffering; mourning, tears, sorrow, etc.

Christ is there to hear, though, and faith is based upon what is heard. So one can obtain information (truth) from Him, even now.

The question remains unanswered Tammy. HOW is Christ "heard"?

The question has been answered on numerous occasions. The linked thread above is titled 'Does Christ speak and HOW?"



Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #25]

Are you are declaring that the God-entity as imaged throughout the Bible is not to be confused with The Creator of this Universe?

The relevant part of the quote which I bolded for emphasis in my previous post was the word Christian.

How is that relevant? Why drop the relevance of the accompanying word "Theology"? "The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology"

If you do not understand that Christ is the Image of God, and the explanations that I have given to date, what more can I do about that?

I am glad you asked. See my prior posts where I say what you can do about that. Broaden the content of your explanation so that one better understands whatever it is you are attempting to explain regarding this claim of Christ being the true image of The Creator of this Universe.

Tell us precisely what that means.

You include what you think are my interpretations; and you reject when I tell you point-blank that I am not presenting an interpretation.

You claim to be presenting a truth - I get that Tammy. What I am asking from you is evidence that your presentation is true. You appear to be stunned to meet someone who doesn't simply take your word for it that your word for it is the truth of the matter. We need more from you than that...and since you claim to hear Christs voice, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the evidence your claim is true.

Any old charlatan can make claims Tammy. Why are you to be held above the suspicion of that?

I am not even suggesting anything that a Christian could disagree with: Christ is the image of God. I was surprised no one thought to mention that truth on a thread titled 'making false images of the Creator' (unless I missed it), so I mentioned it.

What has been mentioned [and not on this thread alone] is that Christians have a hard time agreeing about anything, and this just adds to the confusion. Your idea of "What the image of Christ is" will undoubtable be different from another Christians idea of that.

That is why platitudes are useless as a means of conveying information which helps other understand precisely why the claim should be believed.

Regardless, you must include yourself in this, right? That the 'image' you present of the Creator are your ideas, your thoughts, your musings, your interpretations?

Yes - as I answered most succinctly in my last post.

I see that you are going off on an unnecessary tangent re the rest of your post Tammy. I am simply interested in seeing the support for your claim that there is one true image of The Creator of This Universe, when - most logically - all images have to be false, including the one you say is "The Christ"

What is this true image and why can't you show it to us?
That you claim to hear Christ's actual voice - definitively creates images in the minds of those who read such claim.

There is logically absolutely no image which can truly portray The Creator. If you do not have an image of The Creator - such as when I say the name "Christ" you have no image forming in your mind, as to what Christ looks [or sounds] like, then yes - you are in a better place than most Christians...otherwise - whatever image [visual or audial] that you have in your mind, will be false...

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #25]

Are you are declaring that the God-entity as imaged throughout the Bible is not to be confused with The Creator of this Universe?

I don't know where this question is coming from or its relevance, and there is a bit to unpack in it, but...

A - I am declaring that God - the God and Father of Christ, whose name is JAH, the Most Holy one of Israel, who is revealed to us by Christ - is the Creator of this (and any) universe.

B - Your ideas that you have presented in discussions on this forum, of who/what you call the Creator, do not appear to mesh with the God revealed to us by Christ. So your ideas and the Image of God (that we have in Christ) do not appear to be the same.

C - My God is not the 'god-entity as imaged throughout the bible', because the bible is not an accurate image of my God. Christ is the image of God (the God and Father of Christ).

If you do not understand that Christ is the Image of God, and the explanations that I have given to date, what more can I do about that?

I am glad you asked. See my prior posts where I say what you can do about that. Broaden the content of your explanation so that one better understands whatever it is you are attempting to explain regarding this claim of Christ being the true image of The Creator of this Universe.

Tell us precisely what that means.

I did tell you. And since you seem to understand enough to state that the 'god-entity' is imaged throughout the bible, why are you having such a hard time understanding that Christ is the Image of God?

You include what you think are my interpretations; and you reject when I tell you point-blank that I am not presenting an interpretation.

You claim to be presenting a truth - I get that Tammy. What I am asking from you is evidence that your presentation is true. You appear to be stunned to meet someone who doesn't simply take your word for it that your word for it is the truth of the matter.

I am not stunned; I have never expected or even suggested that someone should simply take my word for anything. I have always pointed to Christ as the one to whom someone should listen if one wishes to know the truth of something.

We need more from you than that...and since you claim to hear Christs voice, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the evidence your claim is true.

Such as? I have given my personal testimony; I have provided physical evidence from what Christ is written to have said, that others testified to - you know, all the stuff I posted on that link that I provided. I can bear witness to Christ, the one you should go to if you want to know the truth of these matters for yourself. That was what I did; granted I asked the Father to lead me wherever He wanted me to be, and I was seeking truth (HIS truth). He led me to His Son.

Any old charlatan can make claims Tammy. Why are you to be held above the suspicion of that?

*sigh*

Who says I expect such a thing?

Regardless, you must include yourself in this, right? That the 'image' you present of the Creator are your ideas, your thoughts, your musings, your interpretations?

Yes - as I answered most succinctly in my last post.

Which, according to your logic, makes your idea of the Creator false. Seems to me that you understand your 'image' of the creator is false, but you want me (and others) to state that every image of the creator is false, including Christ (the Truth). That is just not going to work with me.

I see that you are going off on an unnecessary tangent re the rest of your post Tammy.

If I went off on a tangent William, it is because you went there first. I simply responded to your questions and statements. I note that you did not actually respond to the direct answer I gave to your OP question, a couple posts back:

An image of the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) can be true, if the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) SENT the One who HE (the Creator) knows IS His image, and who He (the Creator) knows does perfectly represent Him.

I am simply interested in seeing the support for your claim that there is one true image of The Creator of This Universe, when - most logically - all images have to be false, including the one you say is "The Christ"

You're going to have to explain the logic of this, William.

What is this true image and why can't you show it to us?

Christ - who is the Truth (including the Truth of God) - is the true image of God (His God and Father, the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH).

I cannot 'show' this image to you because a) He is not physically present, and b) it is not for me to 'show' a person to someone else. I can only bear witness TO Him, and point others TO Him. He said this though:

"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and reveal myself to them."

and,

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

and,

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

There is logically absolutely no image which can truly portray The Creator.

Do you have some evidence to support this statement? Can you supply the logic that NO image can truly portray the Creator?

If you do not have an image of The Creator - such as when I say the name "Christ" you have no image forming in your mind, as to what Christ looks [or sounds] like, then yes - you are in a better place than most Christians...otherwise - whatever image [visual or audial] that you have in your mind, will be false...

Can you recheck this sentence, because I am not sure you phrased it right.



Peace again to you.

[William]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #25]

Are you are declaring that the God-entity as imaged throughout the Bible is not to be confused with The Creator of this Universe?

I don't know where this question is coming from or its relevance, and there is a bit to unpack in it,

Small steps Tammy - depending on conditions - we can hope [for now] that it should be relatively smooth sailing...

but...

A - I am declaring that God - the God and Father of Christ, whose name is JAH, the Most Holy one of Israel, who is revealed to us by Christ - is the Creator of this (and any) universe.

Is this information you are declaring, something you got entirely from the Bible, or is there another source you can identify...re your claim regarding 'hearing the voice of Christ' doing the proclaiming.
I ask specifically because you use this phrase often in arguing with other Christians, as if it is something 'extra' that other Christians do not have.

B - Your ideas that you have presented in discussions on this forum, of who/what you call the Creator, do not appear to mesh with the God revealed to us by Christ. So your ideas and the Image of God (that we have in Christ) do not appear to be the same.

I agree - but appearances can be deceiving so we need to remind ourselves and each other that this is not a competition and that "True Christians" are an informal fallacy - as in "they do not actually exist as real things."

Once this is accepted as established truth, we can each lose it as an element of legitimate argument.

The main critique I have with your opinion is that there is no supporting evidence accompanying it. Perhaps that will become evident as I continue reading your post...

In the mean time I accept that you are arguing solely that it is those things I write about The Creator which are "not in the Bible" - are those things that you refer to (that we have in Christ) as having.

C - My God is not the 'god-entity as imaged throughout the bible', because the bible is not an accurate image of my God. Christ is the image of God (the God and Father of Christ).

Okay. Well that helps because it is the same for me. That is why I created this thread - to examine the differences while understanding that we all equally have no true image of The Creator of this Universe.
You have come along and declared [your belief] that "the image of Christ" is "The True image of The Creator of This Universe." You have yet to show us this image corresponds with what we know of The Universe. I don't see that it does. Perhaps this is because when you mention "Christ Cares", I get this type of image;

[Goggles "Christ Cares - Images"]



Are these the images of The Creator of this Universe you are speaking about?

Also - can you bullet point those images in the Bible you mention that you do not believe are an accurate image of your God, as it would help immensely in understanding where you are coming from.

If you do not understand that Christ is the Image of God, and the explanations that I have given to date, what more can I do about that?

I am glad you asked. See my prior posts where I say what you can do about that. Broaden the content of your explanation so that one better understands whatever it is you are attempting to explain regarding this claim of Christ being the true image of The Creator of this Universe.

Tell us precisely what that means.

I did tell you. And since you seem to understand enough to state that the 'god-entity' is imaged throughout the bible, why are you having such a hard time understanding that Christ is the Image of God?

Well when I read about Christ and what he say's to illustrate an image of The Father, I hear some horror stories mixed in with the fluffy lovey stuff...so I am asking you for clarification...
Given there are corresponding horrors stories re this Creation [the Universe] which can actually be experienced, I am more inclined to accept the horror stories associate with Christ and his telling of it re his Father.

Also - the evidence of Christianity's entrance into and apparent domination [through the wielding of the sword and spilling of blood], of a large chunky sector of the collective human cultures currently surviving, such a God is understandable when aligned with what we know unfolded on this planet.

Are you one of those who believes that the Garden of Eden story was a literal event rather than figurative?

I ask - because "Aliens" is what springs to mind re images, if we are to seriously believe that story is literal.

You include what you think are my interpretations; and you reject when I tell you point-blank that I am not presenting an interpretation.

You claim to be presenting a truth - I get that Tammy. What I am asking from you is evidence that your presentation is true. You appear to be stunned to meet someone who doesn't simply take your word for it that your word for it is the truth of the matter.

I am not stunned; I have never expected or even suggested that someone should simply take my word for anything. I have always pointed to Christ as the one to whom someone should listen if one wishes to know the truth of something.

I understand that as well Tammy. In that you are no different from any other Christian because Christ is in the same Bible and that is where you all get your information from, albeit is interpreted differently - perhaps for the sake of arguing...hard to tell...but all in all not helpful...too many confusing images, so hard to tune into any frequency of truthfulness...but it is good you are not asking anyone to believe you on your word...go to the bible and hear Christ therein...but that is not the impression you give when you talk about the voice of Christ that you hear as and 'extra' to the bible...but you always refer back to the bible as if - all said and done - any voice outside of the bible is questionable.
Even ones called "Christ".

So no - I am not putting you on trail. I am examining the claim and trying to ascertain from the claimant [which you happen to be] as to what you actually mean...and apparently you mean "Its in the Bible go see for yourself"...

We need more from you than that...and since you claim to hear Christs voice, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the evidence your claim is true.

Such as? I have given my personal testimony; I have provided physical evidence from what Christ is written to have said, that others testified to - you know, all the stuff I posted on that link that I provided. I can bear witness to Christ, the one you should go to if you want to know the truth of these matters for yourself. That was what I did; granted I asked the Father to lead me wherever He wanted me to be, and I was seeking truth (HIS truth). He led me to His Son.

How does one "Go to "Christ the Son"?" How did The Father lead you and how different do you think it would be for all individuals who take this way?
What make your way legitimate and mine not? You mentioned how my way...I quote you "Your ideas that you have presented in discussions on this forum, of who/what you call the Creator, do not appear to mesh with the God revealed to us by Christ. So your ideas and the Image of God (that we have in Christ) do not appear to be the same"

What ideas do Christians have which mesh together, you do not say.

Any old charlatan can make claims Tammy. Why are you to be held above the suspicion of that?

*sigh*

Who says I expect such a thing?

It is the image presented which gives that impression. Your argument of special pleading regarding this extra "Voice of Christ" you hear which is not from the bible [so leads the reader to imagine you must hear a voice in your head or a disembodied voice of some sort.] but apparently The Voice is still required to align with the Bible. [as far as I can tell you are arguing.]

Regardless, you must include yourself in this, right? That the 'image' you present of the Creator are your ideas, your thoughts, your musings, your interpretations?

Yes - as I answered most succinctly in my last post.

Which, according to your logic, makes your idea of the Creator false.

No. According to my logic, makes my idea of The Creator more logical than yours. My Idea does not create any images of The Creator, other than placing a mind behind the creation of The Universe.
I don't dress The Creator up in religious ideas and superstitions, or regard The Creator as 'good' or 'evil' or 'father' or 'mother' or sitting on a throne in some dimension getting ready to judge the whole of human kind for offenses committed - and other stuff like that which the bible images...

Seems to me that you understand your 'image' of the creator is false, but you want me (and others) to state that every image of the creator is false, including Christ (the Truth). That is just not going to work with me.

Why not? Don't you see the logic in dropping the costumes which dress an Invisible Entity into something which presents as an image?

I note that you did not actually respond to the direct answer I gave to your OP question, a couple posts back:

An image of the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) can be true, if the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) SENT the One who HE (the Creator) knows IS His image, and who He (the Creator) knows does perfectly represent Him.

I don't see the point in responding to unsupported hearsay/claims Tammy. It is too easy to be lead off on a tangent, and I am too wise a Serpent to be falling for that...and far too innocent to be able to be tempted...

I am simply interested in seeing the support for your claim that there is one true image of The Creator of This Universe, when - most logically - all images have to be false, including the one you say is "The Christ"

You're going to have to explain the logic of this, William.

I have done so in the OP Tammy.

What is this true image and why can't you show it to us?

Christ - who is the Truth (including the Truth of God) - is the true image of God (His God and Father, the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH).

Yes - the supposed Creator of The Universe...but one which you mention is not properly imaged through the bible...

I cannot 'show' this image to you because a) He is not physically present, and b) it is not for me to 'show' a person to someone else. I can only bear witness TO Him, and point others TO Him.

Yes. I believe he once showed himself to me Tammy - certainly as an image - so if that is the case, then yes - JAH is a real entity with the ability to show himself to another/others...which is not necessarily a God-like ability is it?

He said this though:

"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and reveal myself to them."

and,

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

and,

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Yes - more script from the bible. Good oh....

Is that JAH as an image the words place into one's mind, and why are those images true?

There is logically absolutely no image which can truly portray The Creator.

Do you have some evidence to support this statement?

Yes. I can't show it to you though, because it would immediately become an image which would immediately be false.

Can you supply the logic that NO image can truly portray the Creator?

Yes.

This is a rough approximate image of a tiny aspect of The Creator of our Universe


It is not to be regarded as a true portrayal as it is incomplete...it is false in that sense - because it is incomplete.

If you do not have an image of The Creator - such as when I say the name "Christ" you have no image forming in your mind, as to what Christ looks [or sounds] like, then yes - you are in a better place than most Christians...otherwise - whatever image [visual or audial] that you have in your mind, will be false...

Can you recheck this sentence, because I am not sure you phrased it right.

If you can hold no image - audial or visual - of The Creator, in your mind, you are witnessing a truer image of The Creator than if you had visual and audial images held in your mind.

[tam]

Peace to you,

but...

A - I am declaring that God - the God and Father of Christ, whose name is JAH, the Most Holy one of Israel, who is revealed to us by Christ - is the Creator of this (and any) universe.

Is this information you are declaring, something you got entirely from the Bible, or is there another source you can identify...re your claim regarding 'hearing the voice of Christ' doing the proclaiming.

Both - though without Christ confirming it, the words in the book may or may not be true.

I ask specifically because you use this phrase often in arguing with other Christians, as if it is something 'extra' that other Christians do not have.

A - listening to Christ is not something a person HAS, it is something a person DOES. Though if one cannot do it (yet), then one might want to ask for ears to hear.

B - I have never suggested other Christians cannot do this (though some people might claim that it cannot be done, but then that would be them making a statement about themselves; not me making a statement about them). Other Christians knew and did this long before I did.

B - Your ideas that you have presented in discussions on this forum, of who/what you call the Creator, do not appear to mesh with the God revealed to us by Christ. So your ideas and the Image of God (that we have in Christ) do not appear to be the same.

I agree

Okay then.

- but appearances can be deceiving so we need to remind ourselves and each other that this is not a competition and that "True Christians" are an informal fallacy - as in "they do not actually exist as real things."

True Christians exist. Just as false Christians exist. If that is the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, then there is something wrong with the fallacy, OR, people must admit that something can be true even if it uses a logical fallacy. Because it is an absolute fact that false Christians exist. People who are pretending to be Christian (for whatever reason), even though they are atheist.

Once this is accepted as established truth, we can each lose it as an element of legitimate argument.

Though I don't recall bringing it up in this discussion, what you have said is not an established truth.

In the mean time I accept that you are arguing solely that it is those things I write about The Creator which are "not in the Bible" - are those things that you refer to (that we have in Christ) as having.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

C - My God is not the 'god-entity as imaged throughout the bible', because the bible is not an accurate image of my God. Christ is the image of God (the God and Father of Christ).

Okay. Well that helps because it is the same for me. That is why I created this thread - to examine the differences while understanding that we all equally have no true image of The Creator of this Universe.
You have come along and declared [your belief] that "the image of Christ" is "The True image of The Creator of This Universe."

No, not quite. Christ Himself - not the 'image of' Christ - is the image of God (His God and Father). People have all sorts of ideas about Christ or "Jesus"; that does not make them true. But the true Christ (regardless of what man believes) is the Image of God.

You have yet to show us this image corresponds with what we know of The Universe.

Why would I attempt that when I am not the one claiming that the universe is the image of God?

I don't see that it does. Perhaps this is because when you mention "Christ Cares", I get this type of image;

I'm not sure how that point follows your last point. And those pictures are just man's depictions of what they think Christ looks like (or what is traditionally accepted). They don't represent anything except what man thinks (or wants). I do believe I said that it was not about a physical image (at least not while Christ was a man), since God is not a man. More about nature, attributes, desires, etc.

So we can know that God did not strike Uzzah down for trying to keep the ark steady, because that is not the image of God that Christ gives us. Though it may have looked that way to the people who saw Uzzah die after (I don't think the account states how long after) he touched the ark. We can also know that some did not understand the nature and desire of God, before Christ, because when the apostles asked if Christ wanted them to call down fire from heaven (to destroy people who had refused to welcome Him), He rebuked them and told them they know not what spirit they are of. And as He showed us (by word and example), God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

If you do not understand that Christ is the Image of God, and the explanations that I have given to date, what more can I do about that?

I am glad you asked. See my prior posts where I say what you can do about that. Broaden the content of your explanation so that one better understands whatever it is you are attempting to explain regarding this claim of Christ being the true image of The Creator of this Universe.

Tell us precisely what that means.

I did tell you. And since you seem to understand enough to state that the 'god-entity' is imaged throughout the bible, why are you having such a hard time understanding that Christ is the Image of God?

Well when I read about Christ and what he say's to illustrate an image of The Father, I hear some horror stories mixed in with the fluffy lovey stuff...so I am asking you for clarification...
Given there are corresponding horrors stories re this Creation [the Universe] which can actually be experienced, I am more inclined to accept the horror stories associate with Christ and his telling of it re his Father.

Such as?

Also - the evidence of Christianity's entrance into and apparent domination [through the wielding of the sword and spilling of blood], of a large chunky sector of the collective human cultures currently surviving, such a God is understandable when aligned with what we know unfolded on this planet.

Christianity is not Christ.

Did Christ dominate by wielding sword and spilling blood? No, He did not, and He spilled no blood save His OWN blood. So Christianity is not getting their domination through wielding of sword and spilling of blood from Him; Christianity is disobeying Him - both His word and His example. Did He not rebuke Peter for using the sword to harm the servant of one who came to arrest Him? Did He not then heal that servant? Did He not rebuke His apostles when they asked if they should call down fire on people who had not welcomed Him?

Did Christ force anyone to 'convert'? Or did He instead say that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws them?

Are you one of those who believes that the Garden of Eden story was a literal event rather than figurative?

Literal.

I ask - because "Aliens" is what springs to mind re images, if we are to seriously believe that story is literal.

Okay... though that did not explain much (perhaps it is another topic). Who are the 'aliens'? People? Animals? Seraphs (commonly called angels, though angel just means messenger)?

An alien is just someone not native to a certain place.

What I am asking from you is evidence that your presentation is true. You appear to be stunned to meet someone who doesn't simply take your word for it that your word for it is the truth of the matter.

I am not stunned; I have never expected or even suggested that someone should simply take my word for anything. I have always pointed to Christ as the one to whom someone should listen if one wishes to know the truth of something.

I understand that as well Tammy. In that you are no different from any other Christian because Christ is in the same Bible and that is where you all get your information from, albeit is interpreted differently - perhaps for the sake of arguing...hard to tell...but all in all not helpful...too many confusing images, so hard to tune into any frequency of truthfulness...but it is good you are not asking anyone to believe you on your word...go to the bible and hear Christ therein...but that is not the impression you give when you talk about the voice of Christ that you hear

Perhaps because I do not say 'go to the bible and hear Christ therein'. One CAN hear His voice while reading (He has read a verse to me in His voice, so that I heard His sincerity and inflection), but one can also go to Him, ask a question, and listen to His response.

I would suggest perhaps that you take a read (more carefully) through the OP on the link I provided, because this is laid out there... and some of your other questions are addressed there as well.

Regardless, you must include yourself in this, right? That the 'image' you present of the Creator are your ideas, your thoughts, your musings, your interpretations?

Yes - as I answered most succinctly in my last post.

Which, according to your logic, makes your idea of the Creator false.

No. According to my logic, makes my idea of The Creator more logical than yours. My Idea does not create any images of The Creator, other than placing a mind behind the creation of The Universe.

Yes, and then also no? That doesn't make sense, William.

I don't dress The Creator up in religious ideas and superstitions, or regard The Creator as 'good' or 'evil' or 'father' or 'mother' or sitting on a throne in some dimension getting ready to judge the whole of human kind for offenses committed - and other stuff like that which the bible images...

So? You still make claims about what/who you call the Creator, and you do in fact post pictures of the universe and claim them to be partial images of the Creator. You certainly make claims about what the Creator wants (to experience all the good and bad, that we are all 'particles of the creator consciousness' so that the creator can gather all those experiences to himself or something along those lines), and that the Creator has made it so that people choose their own afterlife experience, and that there are things called soul retrievers that are now necessary to help people escape from bad afterlife experiences.

So you have certainly done some 'dressing up' of your own.

Seems to me that you understand your 'image' of the creator is false, but you want me (and others) to state that every image of the creator is false, including Christ (the Truth). That is just not going to work with me.

Why not?

Because it is not true. Because I am heeding my Lord's words to be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves. I am not going to be fooled into being unfaithful to my Lord, and I am not going to believe someone else instead of Christ - Christ who has never lied to me or led me wrong, and who I know loves me and gave His life FOR me. Who keeps His promises to me, who comforts me when I need it, who has given me fruits of the spirit as I need, who hears me and gives me manna as needed, as well as the water of life.

Don't you see the logic in dropping the costumes which dress an Invisible Entity into something which presents as an image?

I see that you are trying to dress up a denial of Christ in a costume that you are calling logic.

And if the Creator has attributes, and desires, and emotions, then why could that that Creator not have sent a living Image to represent Him, to help people know who He truly is? To know what He truly wants? To lead His people into all truth, to train them in peace and mercy and love? Are these things not something that comes from love?

I note that you did not actually respond to the direct answer I gave to your OP question, a couple posts back:

An image of the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) can be true, if the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) SENT the One who HE (the Creator) knows IS His image, and who He (the Creator) knows does perfectly represent Him.

I don't see the point in responding to unsupported hearsay/claims Tammy. It is too easy to be lead off on a tangent, and I am too wise a Serpent to be falling for that...and far too innocent to be able to be tempted...

Right. Don't respond to the response that is on topic, that addresses the OP question. But do respond to anything and everything else, and do make your own unsupported hearsay/claims.

I am simply interested in seeing the support for your claim that there is one true image of The Creator of This Universe, when - most logically - all images have to be false, including the one you say is "The Christ"

You're going to have to explain the logic of this, William.

I have done so in the OP Tammy.

I don't see it there, so why don't you sum it up?

There is logically absolutely no image which can truly portray The Creator.

Do you have some evidence to support this statement?

Yes. I can't show it to you though, because it would immediately become an image which would immediately be false.

So then you can stop with the big old double standard of demanding evidence from others, when you cannot present any for your own claims.

Can you supply the logic that NO image can truly portray the Creator?

Yes.

This is a rough approximate image of a tiny aspect of The Creator of our Universe


It is not to be regarded as a true portrayal as it is incomplete...it is false in that sense - because it is incomplete.

If you could portray a complete picture, would you consider that to then be a true image?

Because Christ is a living being, not a snapshot.



Peace again to you.

[William]

Do you have some evidence to support this statement?

Yes. I can't show it to you though, because it would immediately become an image which would immediately be false.

So then you can stop with the big old double standard of demanding evidence from others, when you cannot present any for your own claims.

So we should agree then that you cannot produce visual or audial evidence just like I cannot produce visual or audial evidence because even to do so would present a false image of The Creator.

It is not a matter of double standards as you suppose Tammy. It is a matter of supporting claims.

I have not claimed that a true image of The Creator are possible. I have clamed the opposite. What we have really are incomplete images which can be integrated with each other in order to get a better image, but even so, cannot be a complete image. An incomplete image therefore has to be a false image, IF it is believed to be true, and denies other pieces the right to integrate.

You have yet to show us this image corresponds with what we know of The Universe.

Why would I attempt that when I am not the one claiming that the universe is the image of God?

I have not claimed the Universe is the image of The Creator. Rather I have made it clear that we should be able to get some idea of The Creators character and personality and motivation/agenda by observing and learning to understand the Creation.

Christianity is not Christ.

A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.

Are you one of those who believes that the Garden of Eden story was a literal event rather than figurative?

Literal

.

I ask - because "Aliens" is what springs to mind re images, if we are to seriously believe that story is literal.

Okay... though that did not explain much (perhaps it is another topic).

If one claims that the story is literal then in order to fit that into what we know about the universe, we have to [given our knowledge of the Universe today] entertain the notion that ET/interdimensional entities are involved as the likeliest explanation for the events described in the garden story.
This would also have to apply to the literal belief in the return of Jesus. We can no longer expect any such event to be 'explained' as something other than ET/interdimensional entities and nor can we be expected to believe such beings are somehow entitled to be called our 'gods' and to worship such beings as gods. Even if it is just the one being one a throne claiming to be the image of The Creator.

No. According to my logic, makes my idea of The Creator more logical than yours. My Idea does not create any images of The Creator, other than placing a mind behind the creation of The Universe.

Yes, and then also no? That doesn't make sense, William.

Ideas are just that. They are not claims. They are not designed to create images but are taken from what is imaged around us already [the Universe] and built upon.

In order for the idea that the Universe is created, to be built upon, one then has to entertain the idea of a Creator. Since we understand enough of the Universe now, we cannot have the idea of a Creator who is mindless for the fact that intelligence is obviously involved - especially in relation to life forms on this planet.

I don't dress The Creator up in religious ideas and superstitions, or regard The Creator as 'good' or 'evil' or 'father' or 'mother' or sitting on a throne in some dimension getting ready to judge the whole of human kind for offenses committed - and other stuff like that which the bible images...

So?

So in that I do not place images onto the idea of The Creator.

You still make claims about what/who you call the Creator,

Not so. I make observations of the creation and from that deduce the most likely ideas of what The Creator might be like, and I do this to offset claims made by religious folk which tell us who and what The Creator is like which are most obviously out of synch with what we observe in the creation.

and you do in fact post pictures of the universe and claim them to be partial images of the Creator.

You still make claims about what/who you call the Creator, and you do in fact post pictures of the universe and claim them to be partial images of the Creator. You

What I claim about the images is that they are better representative of The Creator than religious storytellers [who did not have such images to view] piecing together ideas based upon far less knowledge and then proclaiming those ideas as true, which in turn made images of The Creator in the minds of those who chose to believe the stories as truth.

You still make claims about what/who you call the Creator, and you do in fact post pictures of the universe and claim them to be partial images of the Creator. You certainly make claims about what the Creator wants (to experience all the good and bad, that we are all 'particles of the creator consciousness' so that the creator can gather all those experiences to himself or something along those lines), and that the Creator has made it so that people choose their own afterlife experience, and that there are things called soul retrievers that are now necessary to help people escape from bad afterlife experiences.

That is not a claim. It is building upon an idea that as particles of Creator Consciousness, we are involved in exploration, and discovery, and as we do, we are enabled to reevaluate old ideas and realize that such ideas [which turned into religious 'truths'] about who we are [self identification] are false.

The idea that we are particles of Creator consciousness is itself built upon the shared data [at our fingertips no less] of individuals having NDEs OOBEs and skills with Astral Travel [ability to leave ones body and consciously experience alternate realities] various spiritual teachings to do with such things as alternate realities [Jesus and The Fathers Kingdom as an example] and other data which - when connected - allow for us to understand the possibility that things are not necessarily as human being have being led to believe - either of themselves - or of the next phase experience [afterlife].

In that - one can better appreciate where dots connect and understanding is increased.

And that is not "dressing up The Creator". That is simply acknowledging ones own and other peoples experiences and clearly seeing the similarity in what is being shared regarding both consciousness and the next phase.

So you have certainly done some 'dressing up' of your own.

Dressing up The Creator has to do with images which portray The Creator as a particular individual, sometimes sitting on a throne, etc...you know of these images so I do not need to list them...

Getting a glimpse into The Creators methods through examining both this phase Universe experience and examining the shared stories of individuals alternate experiences is not 'making a false image of The Creator.'

Seems to me that you understand your 'image' of the creator is false, but you want me (and others) to state that every image of the creator is false, including Christ (the Truth). That is just not going to work with me.

Why not?

Because it is not true. Because I am heeding my Lord's words to be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves. I am not going to be fooled into being unfaithful to my Lord, and I am not going to believe someone else instead of Christ - Christ who has never lied to me or led me wrong, and who I know loves me and gave His life FOR me. Who keeps His promises to me, who comforts me when I need it, who has given me fruits of the spirit as I need, who hears me and gives me manna as needed, as well as the water of life.

But that is all image-based Tammy. You have a story which puts images into your head. You believe those stories are true, even though you have no evidence to support that they are. You appear to demand that I accept your witness while you quite obvious do not accept mine.

I have never claimed that Christ is not a part of the whole journey into realization. I have often shared that my current knowledge come through that path itself. Yet I am often accused of being deceived by the devil or some other such accusation simply because I share knowledge which isn't recognized by any Christian organization, and even individual Christians like yourself who do not appear to involved themselves in organized Christianity, treat my knowledge with a type of contempt because it is not something they have been shown, as if somehow that is all the reason they require to make judgements of that nature.

Don't you see the logic in dropping the costumes which dress an Invisible Entity into something which presents as an image?

I see that you are trying to dress up a denial of Christ in a costume that you are calling logic.

This is precisely what I was pointing out in my previous paragraph. I am not 'denying Christ' as you claim - I am questioning images presented of Christ which 'allow' people to make judgements against my and others positions based upon our actual experiences, as you are plainly doing.
There is no thing in your arguments which I can see that gives you any such right to judge others based upon your own belief that you are a "true Christian" and therefore anyone who does not see things as you do, are 'false'.

And if the Creator has attributes, and desires, and emotions, then why could that that Creator not have sent a living Image to represent Him, to help people know who He truly is? To know what He truly wants? To lead His people into all truth, to train them in peace and mercy and love? Are these things not something that comes from love?

Of course. Why are you thinking I have ever argued otherwise? All I have ever argued is that The Creator cannot be imaged. "He" is not really masculine. He is The Mother as much as The Father, and The Brother, and The Sister, and The Creation. I have argued that when we try to separate The Creator from The Creation, we immediately set about building false images in which to believe in as truth.

Right. Don't respond to the response that is on topic, that addresses the OP question. But do respond to anything and everything else, and do make your own unsupported hearsay/claims.

Any claims I make are equally able to be scrutinized and critiqued Tammy. Most of what I have built these ideas I share are not about making images of the Creator and are not unsupported hearsay.

Rather, they are pieces of information which agree with other pieces of information and go together to form an image of a bigger thing than religion has ever been able to provide us with...not of The Creator, but of what is most likely to happen and why, in the next phase.

Your statement "An image of the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) can be true, if the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) SENT the One who HE (the Creator) knows IS His image, and who He (the Creator) knows does perfectly represent Him." is only dealing with an "If" in relation to an actual image of The Creator, which logically has to be false, based upon what little information you have provided to support the statement above.

Perhaps if you fleshed that statement out a great deal more, one could better understand - for example - That Christ allows for us to glimpse into the next phase, and experience OOB and other alternate things, as part of his informing each of us in his own way - what it is he wants us [as individuals] to know and to share with others.

[tam]

Peace to you, and to the reader,

Do you have some evidence to support this statement?

Yes. I can't show it to you though, because it would immediately become an image which would immediately be false.

So then you can stop with the big old double standard of demanding evidence from others, when you cannot present any for your own claims.

So we should agree then that you cannot produce visual or audial evidence just like I cannot produce visual or audial evidence

William, I have never claimed that I can produce visual or audio evidence for you or anyone else. I have said that if one wants to know the truth of anything (including anything I have shared), then one can and should go to the source, the Truth Himself: Christ Jaheshua.

In previous posts on this thread:

I have given my personal testimony; I have provided physical evidence from what Christ is written to have said, that others testified to - you know, all the stuff I posted on that link that I provided. I can bear witness to Christ, the one you should go to if you want to know the truth of these matters for yourself. That was what I did; granted I asked the Father to lead me wherever He wanted me to be, and I was seeking truth (HIS truth). He led me to His Son.


and,

I cannot 'show' this image to you because a) He is not physically present, and b) it is not for me to 'show' a person to someone else. I can only bear witness TO Him, and point others TO Him. He said this though:

"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and reveal myself to them."

and,

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

and,

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

And of course the link where I explain all this in detail:

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=28577

You have yet to show us this image corresponds with what we know of The Universe.

Why would I attempt that when I am not the one claiming that the universe is the image of God?

I have not claimed the Universe is the image of The Creator. Rather I have made it clear that we should be able to get some idea of The Creators character and personality and motivation/agenda by observing and learning to understand the Creation.

"Some" idea, perhaps, though with missing puzzle pieces and an incomplete picture, I'm not sure how you would know which ideas are correct and which are incorrect. Especially if creation has been subject to frustration, at least for a time. I'm also not sure what about Christ you think contradicts 'the universe' to begin with.

Christianity is not Christ.

A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.

Christianity is also not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. A Christian is a person who is both a disciple of Christ and anointed with holy spirit.

Christianity does not make a person a Christian.

CHRIST makes a person Christian (anointing them with holy spirit). Christ is the One who made me Christian. I am not ashamed of Him, or of belonging to Him.

I don't dress The Creator up in religious ideas and superstitions, or regard The Creator as 'good' or 'evil' or 'father' or 'mother' or sitting on a throne in some dimension getting ready to judge the whole of human kind for offenses committed - and other stuff like that which the bible images...

So?

So in that I do not place images onto the idea of The Creator.

You don't place those particular images onto the idea of the Creator.

You still make claims about what/who you call the Creator,

Not so. I make observations of the creation and from that deduce the most likely ideas of what The Creator might be like, and I do this to offset claims made by religious folk which tell us who and what The Creator is like which are most obviously out of synch with what we observe in the creation.

Claims such as...?

You still make claims about what/who you call the Creator, and you do in fact post pictures of the universe and claim them to be partial images of the Creator. You certainly make claims about what the Creator wants (to experience all the good and bad, that we are all 'particles of the creator consciousness' so that the creator can gather all those experiences to himself or something along those lines), and that the Creator has made it so that people choose their own afterlife experience, and that there are things called soul retrievers that are now necessary to help people escape from bad afterlife experiences.

That is not a claim. It is building upon an idea that as particles of Creator Consciousness,

That - the bold and underlined - is a claim.

The idea that we are particles of Creator consciousness is itself built upon the shared data [at our fingertips no less] of individuals having NDEs OOBEs and skills with Astral Travel [ability to leave ones body and consciously experience alternate realities] various spiritual teachings to do with such things as alternate realities [Jesus and The Fathers Kingdom as an example] and other data which - when connected - allow for us to understand the possibility that things are not necessarily as human being have being led to believe - either of themselves - or of the next phase experience [afterlife].

These stories are claims and hearsay as well are they not? Because while you claim to have an OOBE (and I am not suggesting you did not, your personal experience is your personal experience), you do not claim to have had the same experience of others re: afterlife experiences. Not to mention the fact that you (and they) must then interpret both your experience and what you saw in your experience.

We discussed that here where you claim that others have had experiences of a hell in an afterlife of their own making:

My Lord does not teach the 'system' that you describe, and so I cannot accept it. But even if I had not been taught anything on the matter from Him, you have provided no reason or evidence to accept the statement that you made. I certainly mean no offense, and I respect your right to your belief. But there are many other things that can be considered instead of accepting that they had a real experience of a hell in an afterlife of their own making.

There have been claims of people going to hell (or to heaven) that have been recanted as lies (lies told to sell books; get publicity; lies that were pressured upon them by others, etc.) That is a fact. People also dream (I see no reason why a person could not dream during a near-death experience). So they might simply be relaying their experience from a dream of their own making (or nightmare, as it were). And even if it were a vision, that does not mean that they understood the meaning; they may have inserted their own belief system onto the meaning of their dream or vision.


Just some things to perhaps consider. Or not, as you choose.

viewtopic.php?p=1030073#p1030073


You also accept the claims that you said others give about 'afterlife experiences' (which doesn't make much sense to me, because if it was an afterlife experience, how then are they back in this life to share it?)... but at the same time you reject the claims made in the experience that John of Patmos had and recorded (Revelation).

So you have certainly done some 'dressing up' of your own.

Dressing up The Creator has to do with images which portray The Creator as a particular individual, sometimes sitting on a throne, etc...you know of these images so I do not need to list them...

William, among other things, you dress up who/what you call the Creator as a being who wants/needs to experience life (the good and the bad), through individual experiences from us. What makes you think that does not put an image in people's heads?

I have never claimed that Christ is not a part of the whole journey into realization. I have often shared that my current knowledge come through that path itself. Yet I am often accused of being deceived by the devil or some other such accusation simply because I share knowledge which isn't recognized by any Christian organization, and even individual Christians like yourself who do not appear to involved themselves in organized Christianity, treat my knowledge with a type of contempt because it is not something they have been shown, as if somehow that is all the reason they require to make judgements of that nature.

That is not the reason for rejecting your claims, William, or even for believing you have been deceived. It is not about something that might not yet be known. It is because of what you say that contradicts Christ. It is because some things you say (such as on the thread linked above) make no sense; you use some of the phrases that Christ used that you get from the bible (In my Father's house there are many rooms), and then you twist that (add to it or take away from it) in a way that contradicts all the other things that He has said about that house and desiring to be in that house.

That is something religion does - and one of the reasons we have so many sects/denominations. Religion taking the truth that Christ taught - then adding to or taking away from the truth, perhaps to gain followers after itself, perhaps because people are not satisfied with 'manna' (that comes from Christ). They want all the various kinds of foods that "Egypt" offers them. (using the example of Israel in the wilderness grumbling about the food and longing for the food Egypt could give them, even if that meant they had to be enslaved by Egypt all over again, even if it meant they would die in Egypt).

Don't you see the logic in dropping the costumes which dress an Invisible Entity into something which presents as an image?

I see that you are trying to dress up a denial of Christ in a costume that you are calling logic.

This is precisely what I was pointing out in my previous paragraph. I am not 'denying Christ' as you claim

How is rejecting the truth that Christ teaches not a denial of Him? How is rejecting His words and accepting the words of another, not rejecting Him? He SAID, "If you know me, you know my Father also. If you have seen me, you have seen my Father also."

He also said that He is the Truth, but you are calling Him a false image of God. One cannot be the Truth and at the same time, be false.

- I am questioning images presented of Christ which 'allow' people to make judgements against my and others positions based upon our actual experiences, as you are plainly doing.

As you also do, do you not? I don't even reject that you had an OOBE - maybe you did, maybe you didn't - I reject the conclusions you have drawn. For reasons stated.

There is no thing in your arguments which I can see that gives you any such right to judge others based upon your own belief that you are a "true Christian" and therefore anyone who does not see things as you do, are 'false'.

I did not judge others at all, and certainly not for the reason you have stated. But I am certainly permitted to use discernment. Why would Christ have warned us about false christs and false prophets if we were not permitted to test the claims that people make, to make sure we are not misled? Why would we be warned to test the inspired expressions, if there were no lies or lying spirits out there? And if we were not permitted to use discernment, why would Christ have said,

I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Rev 2:2, 3

And if the Creator has attributes, and desires, and emotions, then why could that that Creator not have sent a living Image to represent Him, to help people know who He truly is? To know what He truly wants? To lead His people into all truth, to train them in peace and mercy and love? Are these things not something that comes from love?

Of course. Why are you thinking I have ever argued otherwise? All I have ever argued is that The Creator cannot be imaged.

The bold/underlined from my statement and the bold/underlined from your statement do not match up. Can you reconcile those for me?

"He" is not really masculine. He is The Mother as much as The Father, and The Brother, and The Sister, and The Creation.

Both male and female are in God, just as both male and female were in Adam (until God removed the female - Eve - from Adam). God is not male or female, either; God is spirit; but both male and female are in Him.

God is not the creation though. The Creator is not the creation. God is the Creator (with Christ... all things came from God through Christ).

But the builder of a house is not the house itself. Even if we were to make that more intimate, I (the mother) am not the child I gave birth to. My child has some attributes from me (genetic at the least), sure, but my child is his own individual person. I am not him.

Right. Don't respond to the response that is on topic, that addresses the OP question. But do respond to anything and everything else, and do make your own unsupported hearsay/claims.

Any claims I make are equally able to be scrutinized and critiqued Tammy. Most of what I have built these ideas I share are not about making images of the Creator and are not unsupported hearsay.

I have done the scrutinizing and critiquing, but when I reject as false something you claim, you claim I am judging you. What is the point of scrutinizing and critiquing if one cannot reject the claim?

Your statement "An image of the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) can be true, if the Creator (the God and Father of Christ) SENT the One who HE (the Creator) knows IS His image, and who He (the Creator) knows does perfectly represent Him." is only dealing with an "If" in relation to an actual image of The Creator, which logically has to be false, based upon what little information you have provided to support the statement above.

Logically that does not have to be false. If there was not enough information or evidence upon which to draw a conclusion, then logically that is all that can be said: there is insufficient information upon which to draw a firm conclusion.

Perhaps if you fleshed that statement out a great deal more, one could better understand - for example - That Christ allows for us to glimpse into the next phase, and experience OOB and other alternate things, as part of his informing each of us in his own way - what it is he wants us [as individuals] to know and to share with others.

I fleshed it out in previous explanations in this thread when you asked me to do so. That fleshing just did not include the things you might want it to include (such as your example above). Although I will point out that Christ did give John of Patmos the revelation, where John was in the Lord's Day (the day of the Lord, when Christ returns). That revelation also included things from the past (from before that revelation was given), the present (at the time the revelation was given), and the future (for a time after the revelation was given).

But you do not accept those things that John saw and heard while in the spirit, in the Lord's Day, things which do not mesh with what others have told you happens (in the next phase). Why is his experience and testimony incorrect, and theirs correct?


Peace again to you!