Death will always have meaning ------- to those who knew them in life.

must be the superior DNA..

I thought about sending in crackers, cheese and oxygen tanks as a goodwill gesture, but they might be debated and the superior DNA cockroaches will run off with the food before the Ding Dong Bell of Page 6 begineth .....

st have became to involved for some to follow

i am amazed at the really intelligent debate on this tho..

where what when

are you hallucinating or sumtin

hugs

i thought yokoke was pretty good..

Well I appreciate it and Thank You...but the DNA issue strikes close to home... and genetics is part of our family now as God has been... and I know for a fact... he has a sense of humor...

Adj4u wrote:

"if this is true that jesus was in the old testament

then he was not born of mary

and the holy spirit did not need to come upon her

which would make the whole new testament a lie"

First off - It is true that Jesus was in the Old Testament, but your premise is that he was there in a bodily form that precludes his being born of Mary. False premise. Jesus existed before the incarnation, and during his walk here on earth, then after the Resurrection in a resurected Body. Jesus - "God the Son", through whom all things were made has to exist in a bodily form that conforms to your understanding, else the New Testiment is a lie??? Here - let me think about this.

It may seem to appear that I'm picking on you Adj4U - I'm not really, just catching up on this thread, and you're posting a lot. You said:


Adj4U wrote:

"so when was jesus begotten

this is the issue of which i speak

if he was begotten b4 mary then

i see his birth as a farse

and misleading

and if this is the case the foundation of christianity

is based on flawed doctrine"

Hmmm... It appears that you are not familiar with the Christian concept of the Trinity. If not - then of couirse it doesn't make sense to you - hoverev, that is not evidence that it isn't true. Jesus was begotten of Mary as the incarnate Son of God - who existed from the beginning, and will be the last. In the beginning, he was with God (the Father) and was God (perfectly exact in all likeness and essence) He became a man. (this is the begotten part) Coming to his people (Jews) as their redeemer (salvation from a fallen world - under the domain of Satan and his hosts) He was rejected by his own, thus changing the concept that the Jews felt they understood their Savior would be. Due to their rejection (the Jews) only those who believed in Him (Being the way as He stated) and this "invitation" was now available to all - not just the Jews.
(Although it could be easily argued that it was always going to be this way. The incarnated body was crucified, and Jesus - the begotten of Mary - died. He was resurrected by God the Father on the 3rd Day. Why - because he said he would. He then arose to heaven in his "resurrected" body. That's three separately distinct manifistations of God the Son, Jesus. However the differences in hios manifistations - He has always been the same. One with the Father.

Abra;

I just realized you asked a question way back when around page 2 I think it was.

You responded to my saying that "if they find the remains of Jesus that God does not exist."

Then you made some reference to why god would not exist just because Jesus was shown to not have been resurected. Well - I didn't say "god" would not exist, I said "God" would not exist.

I found your story to be interesting. The reason I did is because I can recall doing the same thing in my youth - trying to "meet my hands" front and back in a perfect "mirror", fromt and back. I don't remember having astral projecting/ed (for a simplistic term here) at that time but nottoo many years later, I did experience the same sensation of leaving my body and being far above it with the sense of everything being connected. I wonder if we all experience similar expereiences like this. Anyway - I found it odd that because you had this "Sense of god" at that time, and it preceeded your "understanding of Jesus" that you've allowed this logic to conclude that god was real - while Jesus was not? Aside from this being purely experiencial - how is it that you did not determine that the "god" that you sensed was not in fact Jesus?

>He became a man. (this is the begotten part)

So Eljay Jesus is a man.
Correct?

Well I will run with this and assume yes....

Every living creature on this planet, every animal, every woman, every man, every homo sapien(um human) has DNA. Therefore Jesus has DNA.

And God said,
Let "Us" make man in "Our" image, after "Our" likeness....
(Genesis 1:25-26)

So what if God has DNA too? Or a strand that started it all?



True scientific facts that we can't turn our heads and ignore is this:

- All humans are descended from a single individual who lived about 270,000 years ago.

- Humans and New World monkeys share an ancestor which lived about 7 million years ago.

- Humans and mice share a common ancestor which lived about 50 million years ago.

- All life on earth is thought to be descended from an original primordial single cell organism which lived about 3.5 billion years ago.

- The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago but was probably incompatible with life until perhaps 3.8 billion years ago so life apparently appeared relatively quickly.

Eljay wrote:
“I found it odd that because you had this "Sense of god" at that time, and it preceeded your "understanding of Jesus" that you've allowed this logic to conclude that god was real - while Jesus was not?”

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. My previous experience had nothing at all to do with my rejection of the story of Jesus. I rejected the story of Jesus for reasons related entirely to the story (which necessarily includes the entire Old Testament). In short, if I have to reject the Old Testament I must also reject the story of Jesus (as it is interpreted).

How this relates to my childhood experience is simply that I can reject a certain picture of God and not reject god.

Eljay Wrote:
“Well - I didn't say "god" would not exist, I said "God" would not exist.”

Ok, I see you are saying the same thing here too. I guess I have rejected “God”. I don’t believe that “God” exists (i.e. I don’t believe that God is like the picture depicted in the Bible). But I still believe in “god”. In other words, I still believe that there is a mystical spiritual nature to the universe, it just isn’t a person-like entity with an agenda. I also don’t see our spiritual nature as being individual ‘spirits’.

We are simply part of god. The whole idea that we could even exist separate from god is a concept that goes beyond this picture. To be able to exist separate from god would imply that we are separate entities (i.e. Gods in our own right). I don’t believe that we are separate from the spirit of the universe.

Eljay wrote:
“Aside from this being purely experiencial - how is it that you did not determine that the "god" that you sensed was not in fact Jesus?”

The entity that I became one with in my childhood was not a judgmental entity. That part I can’t explain, I can only say what I felt. The feeling was one of being completely at home, no requirements necessary. It’s simply my “true nature”. There was no sense of any kind of a threat that I could ever be separated from it. That’s the part that can’t be put into words. It was an overwhelming sense of complete acceptance without the slightest hint of ‘judgment’. It was a very profound sense that I am the spirit. In other words, it was like I had experienced my “true nature”. I wasn’t merely being given a vision of what “could be” by a third party. Instead it was like I was experiencing my “true nature”.

That’s the only way that I can describe it. I was far too young at that time to even think about it philosophically. And it wasn’t the guiding principle of my life. I’ve always just been “me”, and I never change who I am no matter what belief system I encounter. I guess my belief system simply aren’t what I base my life on. If I became a full-fledged Christian, for example, I wouldn’t need to change my behavior one iota in order to conform to its belief system.

I see that many other people do change their behavior depending on what they believe. I’ve never been like that. It just makes no sense to me.

I guess I’ve always believed in ‘god’ even before I had my profound experience, and even before I was old enough to understand the concept intellectally. But at that time I wasn’t even aware of “God”. The picture of "God” requires knowing how a particular story goes, and so it would be impossible to know “God” prior to knowing the story.

interesting

but with no foundation given for your argument

i must object to your statement eljay

and strike it from the record

unless you can provide foundation

just cause someone says something it does not make it so

you may use the book of your religion for foundation if you wish

Yokoke;

Sorry - wasn't on-line to respond quick enough. You asked if Jesus was a man - then responded:

"Well I will run with this and assume yes...."

Okay, I'll agree with you for a moment - but I'd like to add a qualifyer to my agreement. Jesus, while incarnate was a man, and I would not stand opposed to saying that He had "DNA", but I can't establish tat as an acceptable precident for now claiming God has DNA, for God is spirit. We know by Jesus' own words that He "was I AM" before the incarnation, and we know from His visiting the Apostles in the upper room - having just passed through the wall - that He had the marks of the crucifixion as he demonstrated to Thomas. However - he later visits the Apostles by the sea - asking Peter 3 times if he loved Him, and the Apostles did not recognize Him. Do we now assume that Jesus was incapable of appearing to man in whatever form he wished because he came to earth and incarnated into flesh and blood so we can apply our limited knowledge of DNA at this time to qualify belief? Seems like putting God in a box.
I see no reason why the incarnated Jesus could not have had DNA, but Jesus as God the Son - well it is a logical stretch to say that this must be so because He had DNA while incarnate.

adj4u;

I'm not following your reference - what "statement" are you refering to?

Abra;

Actually - I fully understood your point. Though I am sort of relating what you experienced to a similar experience I had as a child, I could easily draw the same conclusion you had, and have - based on the experience in memory, and how it relates to what I/we have come to understand as the difference between "god" and "God". Perhaps it is this experiencial occurance in our youth that sends us on a journey to know and understand this concept of "God/god", which we later find out is actually something that people believe existed "while" we had our childhood experience. Since neither one of us at the time we went through what we did - knew what "God or god" was.
Yet we knew there was something beyond our understanding. Whereas you started in a Christian based setting - and ventured out from there to other things - I started from an Atheistic one, and eventually discovered the biblical Christianity. However I don't now qualify my childhood experience with this understanding, but I just don't deny the possibily either. Whereas I sense that you have - which is why I asked.

Really, I thought all the "God has DNA" commenters were -purely joking-. (Jesus, during his time on earth, is another story. But the timeless God?)

Now, I can easily imagine our universe as created by a matter based being in another universe, also constrained by space, matter/energy and time... But that's a fringe idea,

Most conceive of God the Creator as outside of all time and space - and there is no place or purpose for DNA in such a being. Its said we are made in Gods likeness, but come on - "likeness" - how do you choose which qualities are included and which aren't? whatever is convenient for your argument at the moment? It makes sense to me that -if- God is posited as timeless, matterless, then "likeness" should not be taken as related to matter-based structures.

Please notice that I am not saying that the incarnate Jesus was without DNA - but IF Jesus was God, and IF Jesus had DNA, that doesn't mean his -DNA- had special divine status, it could have been just a male variation of Mary's DNA. Would you say that Jesus' eye color was "the Eye Color of the Timeless God"? I wouldn't place such importance on the physical body Jesus inhabited.

Messagetrade;

(Clicking on the noding in assent emoticon) Yup!