MuttleyLaff:
Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
²⁸They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."…
²⁹"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
- Mark 8:27-29

Know who you are and not what others call/called you
Never allow yourself to be defined by the world's someone else's opinion of you

Thanks for the words of encouragement tho.....
Although i do not personally suffer from identity crisis.

As i am an old hand in the mud on issues like this. And the fact of who i am is not lost on me.
My life is not governed by what people say about me.
Well i'm propelled and driven by what my God says about me and what i think of myself.
I am a divine contraption from the top drawer

- 1 Cor 15 vs 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am........

- I am a procduct of prophetic ochestration. Divinely designed to succeed.

- For i know who i am........because greater, greater, greater, greater, greater is he that is in me than he that is in the world.........for i am born of the indestructible and in corruptible word of God........and daily my mind is renewed in the knowledge of the image of him who has created me.....i am gods.

Thanks bruh and take good care.

malvisguy212:
1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer AS a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify
God on this behalf."

there is something you don't understand here. First, this is the ONLY place in scripture the word "christian" were use by a man of God, Secondly, Peter did not label the followers of Christ a "Christian" The word "AS"means
"like or similar to," but it does not
mean one is that word. For example:

Genesis 49:9, "...he couched AS a lion," does not mean Judah was a lion when he couched!

Exodus 15:5, "...they sank into the bottom as a stone," does not mean they were a stone when they sank.

My brother, my brother!! Pls read the scripture with understanding.
That statement in the above verse of scripture as put up by Apostle Peter is not a simile, it is not a figure of speech. He wasn't talking figuratively, metaphorically or rhetorically, rather that is a clear statement of fact.
Intentionally set up to provide the early believers with a lucid contradistinction of the type of trials and challenges they are to face in the hands of the unbelieiving society.

In no uncertain terms it seek to help early believe have a lucid understanding of the peculiar trials and affliction they are to face and be identified with.
And this is to be in sharp contrast to that of the unbelievers.
Simply put he is trying to explian to them that if they should ever be found guilty in the hands of the law of the society, it shoudn't be because they commited one civil crime or the other, like theft, murder, a meddler in other people affairs, and any other crime.

But rather it should be because of their professed faith in Christ. Which is likely to attract ridicle and opposition from the unbelieving society, the wake of which is certian to bring verbal insults/ disperagement , persecutions like commiting them to prison, physical molestation/ assault, confiscation/destruction of their property and etc.

And this is why it is imperative that one reads the scripture contextually so as to arrive at meaningful and intelligent conclusion.
Now reading from vs
12 - My dear friends, do not be suprised at the painful test yu are suffering, as though something unusual were happening to yu.
13 - Rather be glad that yu are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that yu may be full of joy when his glory is revealed.
14 - Happy are yu if yu are insulted because yu are Christ's followers; this means that the glorious Spirit, the Spirit of God is resting on yu.
15 - if any of yu suffer, it must not be because yu are a murderer or a thief or a criminal or a meddler in other people affairs.
16 - However if yu suffer because yu are a Christian[/u]don't be ashamed of it, but thank God that[u]yu bear Christ's name. Goodnews Version.

Now my brother except if yu want to be dead to reason then there no gainsaying the fact that the above portions of scripture clearly called the early believers CHRISTIANS.

Now yu also got up talk of how that was the only time an apostle mentioned that name in the bible.
And so what?
Are yu trying to insinuate that because that is the only instance we have an apostle or a believer making reference to that name/term in the entire bible, then it is unscriptural, hmn!..

Yu obviously want to draw strength from the injuction in the scripture that in the mouth of 2-3 witnesses should every word be confirmed.

But yu are obviously not thinking outside the box to understand that the mere alluding to it by Peter in a positive setting is a pointer to the fact, that he is giving and lending support/ credence to it.

And yu must also understand that in trying to seek out scriptures to bolster any doctrine in the faith; even if we could only pinpoint a singular scripture that point to an issue of doctrine,..
Maturity in understanding the scripture also behoves us to search out for other kindred verse/verses of scripture that genarally speaking, sort of lends credence or credibilty to the obvious singular one that we have.

Hence in good authority, i believe that Paul's reaction to king Aggripa when he insinuated that Paul was almost trying to convince him to become a Christian, also lends credence to the fact that Paul himself was not averse to the idea of being called a Christian.
Acts 26 vs 28 - Then Aggripa said unto paul, almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian.
29 - And Paul said, i would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day,.....

So we can conclusively say that Peter alluding to it and Paul consenting to the idea of not being averse to the idea of being called a Christian, both inclusively lends credibility to that term as an appellation that was accepted in the early church, whether or not the people that coined it as non believers had the intention to use it as a spite word/term or not.

nynbrada:


My brother, my brother!! Pls read the scripture with understanding.
That statement in the above verse of scripture as put up by Apostle Peter is not a simile, it is not a figure of speech. He wasn't talking figuratively, metaphorically or rhetorically, rather that is a clear statement of fact.
Intentionally set up to provide the early believers with a lucid contradistinction of the type of trials and challenges they are to face in the hands of the unbelieiving society.

In no uncertain terms it seek to help early believe have a lucid understanding of the peculiar trials and affliction they are to face and be identified with.
And this is to be in sharp contrast to that of the unbelievers.
Simply put he is trying to explian to them that if they should ever be found guilty in the hands of the law of the society, it shoudn't be because they commited one civil crime or the other, like theft, murder, a meddler in other people affairs, and any other crime.

But rather it should be because of their professed faith in Christ. Which is likely to attract ridicle and opposition from the unbelieving society, the wake of which is certian to bring verbal insults/ disperagement , persecutions like commiting them to prison, physical molestation/ assault, confiscation/destruction of their property and etc.

And this is why it is imperative that one reads the scripture contextually so as to arrive at meaningful and intelligent conclusion.
Now reading from vs
12 - My dear friends, do not be suprised at the painful test yu are suffering, as though something unusual were happening to yu.
13 - Rather be glad that yu are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that yu may be full of joy when his glory is revealed.
14 - Happy are yu if yu are insulted because yu are Christ's followers; this means that the glorious Spirit, the Spirit of God is resting on yu.
15 - if any of yu suffer, it must not be because yu are a murderer or a thief or a criminal or a meddler in other people affairs.
16 - However if yu suffer because yu are a Christian[/u]don't be ashamed of it, but thank God that[u]yu bear Christ's name. Goodnews Version.

Now my brother except if yu want to be dead to reason then there no gainsaying the fact that the above portions of scripture clearly called the early believers CHRISTIANS.

Now yu also got up talk of how that was the only time an apostle mentioned that name in the bible.
And so what?
Are yu trying to insinuate that because that is the only instance we have an apostle or a believer making reference to that name/term in the entire bible, then it is unscriptural, hmn!..

Yu obviously want to draw strength from the injuction in the scripture that in the mouth of 2-3 witnesses should every word be confirmed.

But yu are obviously not thinking outside the box to understand that the mere alluding to it by Peter in a positive setting is a pointer to the fact, that he is giving and lending support/ credence to it.

And yu must also understand that in trying to seek out scriptures to bolster any doctrine in the faith; even if we could only pinpoint a singular scripture that point to an issue of doctrine,..
Maturity in understanding the scripture also behoves us to search out for other kindred verse/verses of scripture that genarally speaking, sort of lends credence or credibilty to the obvious singular one that we have.

Hence in good authority, i believe that Paul's reaction to king Aggripa when he insinuated that Paul was almost trying to convince him to become a Christian, also lends credence to the fact that Paul himself was not averse to the idea of being called a Christian.
Acts 26 vs 28 - Then Aggripa said unto paul, almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian.
29 - And Paul said, i would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day,.....

So we can conclusively say that Peter alluding to it and Paul consenting to the idea of not being averse to the idea of being called a Christian, both inclusively lends credibility to that term as an appellation that was accepted in the early church, whether or not the people that coined it as non believers had the intention to use it as a spite word/term or not.

When Peter was referring to the title "Christian, " it is in the context of SUFFERING, and is in reference to the
name as IMPOSED upon them by THEIR ENEMIES, because our enemies want us to suffer. And amazingly it was the pagans at antioch who first call the apostles christians. The pagans are trying to described something they did not see. If you are a constituent of a Kingdom, you do not name one in the same Kingdom any thing; but you call them according to the relation between the two of you (brother, sister, mother, father, workman, labourer, minister, bishop, deacon, etc). And who establishes the relation? The Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12).

MizMyColi:


WORRYING EQUALS STRANGULATING YOURSELF

When we speak about emotional attachments, we are speaking about a tightness in our personal preferences for how we want things to go. It is understandable that we want things to go in a positive direction. That in itself is a good intention. The problem is that we haven’t accepted the despite all the best intentions, we can’t manage all aspects of all situations. With limited understanding, we try too hard to control too much while something inside of us knows there are unknowns that have the power to influence the outcome. Because we are so attached to things going the way we want coupled with the fact that we can’t guarantee everything will work out as hoped, there is a possibility of a bad outcome. This idea takes root in our minds and given the negative state of thinking that is prominent in our culture, we choose worry as a coping tool. We choose to strangle ourselves and cause mental distress.

The solution to this issue is learning detachment. Detachment is not equal to not caring. It is a state of being that accepts the out-of-control aspects of life. A spiritually mature person knows that controlling life shuts out God so they don’t attempt to. They also have developed practices for dealing with emotions such as disappointment and frustration that can be triggered when outcomes aren’t what were hoped for. Patiently meditating when having disruptive feelings is recommended.

So far so good, what I've understand in your post is beautiful logic and idea how to communicate with God and response to spiritual knowledge/truth. But how true is the response to this gods to us ? Have you ever had a personal relationship with this gods ? What Does enkanker say about Jesus christ ?

This your reply left me cracked up.
I don't even know if i should say yu did't read my post at all or should i say yu failed to comprehend it in the first place, though this may sound sarcastic.

malvisguy212:
When Peter was referring to the title "Christian, " it is in the context of SUFFERING,

Agreed, it was in reference to the trials they were and would go through as FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST -"CHRISTIANS" and he was actually contrasting it to that of the unbelievers. That they Christ followers[CHRISTIANS], shouldn't be caught being punished by the same offence that an unbeliever is being punished for.

The unbeliever could be punished if caught in theft, murder robbery or any other crime as listed in vs..
15 - But let non of yu[who is a follower of Christ i.e a Christian] suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

In verse 16, he now says....

- But if anyone suffer because he/she is a Christian[follower of Christ], let him/her not be ashamed; but let him glorify/praise God on this behalf[this priviledge of being called a Christian or follower of Christ].

Yu can see clearly as i have managed to rephrase it, that he was actually refering them early believers as Christians - which simply translates as a follower or imitator of Christ or someone that is like Christ.

So please stop all this sophistry yu guys are sophisticating here.

and is in reference to the name as IMPOSED upon them by THEIR ENEMIES, because our enemies want us to suffer.

Sincerely i don tire for this spurious claims yu guys are making here. My God! This is pure chicanery.

Pls, show me just a single verse from the scripture as a proof for this claim yu are making that it was the early christians enemies that gave them the name "Christian"
Seeing it is possible for it to have been coined by the early believers themselves. As the scripture is silent on the side of the divide that actually coined the name "Christian" , hence, we cannot for certainity assert with any sense of certitude that is was the pagans nor the early believers that first coined it.
As a result whatever concusion we arrive at this issues, is subject to mere speculation and should never be treated as if it were a fact.

and amazingly it was the pagans at antioch who first call the apostles christians. The pagans are trying to described something they did not see.

Same answer here as the one above.

If you are a constituent of a Kingdom, you do not name one in the same Kingdom any thing; but you call them according to the relation between the two of you (brother, sister, mother, father, workman, labourer, minister, bishop, deacon, etc). And who establishes the relation? The Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12).

Agreed.
But yu guys seems to be making a mountian out of a mole hill with the appellation "Christian"

And if i may ask,...
- What is the meaning of the name Christian??
- Are yu a JW or CATHOLIC??
- And don't fail to supply just a single verse in the bible supporting your claim that it was the pagans in Antioch that first called the early believers Christians.

.

malvisguy212:
1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer AS a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify
God on this behalf."

Well, i'll leave yu and MuttleyLaff with a number of english translation of the Bible on this same verse to stew and ponder on.

NIV - However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear this name.

AMP - But if anyone suffers[ill-treatment] as a Christian[because of his belief], he is not to be ashamed, but it is to glorify God[because he is considered worthy to suffer] in this name.

CEB - But don't be ashamed if you suffer as one who belongs to Christ[Christian]. Rather, honour God as you bear Christ name. Give honour to God.

CJB - But if anyone suffer for being Messianic, let him not be ashamed; but let him bring glory to God by the way he bears this name.

ERV - But if you suffer because you are a "Christ-Follower", don't be ashamed. You should praise God for that name.

EXB - But if you suffer because you are a Christian, do not be ashamed. Praise God because you wear that name.

TLB - But it is no shame to suffer for being a Christian. Praise God for the priviledge of being in Christ's family and being called in his wonderful name.

MSG - If you are abused because of Christ, count yourself fortunate. It is the Spirit of God and his glory in you that brought you to others. If they are on you because you broke the law or disturbed peace, that is a different matter, But if it is because you're a Christian, don't give second thought. Be proud of the distinguished status reflected in that name.

GW - If you suffer for being a Christian, don't feel ashamed , but praise God for being called that name.

VOICE - But if you should suffer for being a Christian, don't think of it as a disgrace, as it would be if you had done wrong. Praise God you are permitted to carry this name.

I sincerely hope these various translations will help you re-structure your thinking on this issue.

Enjoy.
And God bless.

nynbrada:
yu are utterly wrong here @ bolded. For the fact that we don't have a copius useage of the term in the bible doesn't mean the early early believers never subscribed to the useage of that name

If it was necessary enough to be called a Christian, then there would have been copius usage of believers calling themselves Christians

nynbrada:
Moreso, the singular employment of that name by peter to early believers clearly disproves your claim. As that verse of 1 Peter 4 vs 16 is not a simile but a clear statement of fact. I will deal more on this when i reply malvisguy

Peter is on a different train of thought to yours

nynbrada:
My brother, this is clearly a false analogy as yu already have a premeditated conclusion that the word 'christain' is a slur word and therefore derogatory

My brother, in line with Peter's train of thought in 1 Peter 4:15-16, in his Annals, Roman historian Tacitus points to those who suffered or were persecuted as ''those who . . . were vulgarly called Christians''
Does Tacitus too have a premeditated conclusion?

nynbrada:
The problem i tend to have with some Christians is when they come out and make assertive statements on issues in the bible that they do not have cogent evidence to back up their claims

Answered immediately above

nynbrada:
And yu are found wanton on this unnecessary malady, as there is no shred of evidence from the scripture that the word/term christian is derogative in nature/application

Though answered immediately above, will it grease more

nynbrada:
As a result it will be very wrong for yu to say with any sense of certitude that the word/term in question is derogative to say the least.
So bruh on this one ooh! The ground yu are standing on is a sinking sand. As yu do not have any evidence from the bible to bolster your claim

Its you bro, standing in quicksand, claiming the Apostles, believers, saints, called-out-ones called themselves Christians

nynbrada:
I personally think yu pulled this one up from tradition or from badwagon effect.
'cuz some authority have come up wt such claim and yu graciously inclined to dance along without proper personal study/research on the issue

Biblical fact and historical study is clear on the matter.
You're having truth decay, because you dont want to cleaningly brush up your bible

nynbrada:
Now don't blame Catholics for holding on to doctrine/teachings that has been inspired by spurious traditions of men- but lacking in everyway any scriptural foundation

Shall we stick to the matter, and leave Catholics out.
As am only interested in the truth and not who or which denomination is to blame

nynbrada:
Moreover the word Christian on its own is not derogatory in anyway, as the little i know of it simply means - Christ one /follower/immitator of Christ /Christ like /little Christ.

Did Jesus called the disciples Christian?
Did any of the Apostles call themselves or fellow believers christians?

nynbrada:
From these afforementioned meaning, i do not see anything derogatory in it.
And i'm sure d early believers were not averse 2 subscribe to such appellation, even when it is possible that the non believing Antioch residents used it to spite them for their lifestyle and conduct which was in non conformity with that of the world.
Nonetheless the meaning of the word on itself is not derogatory

You are free to bury your head in the sand but read this
M. Renan in his book L’Antéchrist about the word ''Christian'', says on page 37:
''Well-bred people avoided pronouncing the name, or, when forced to do so, made a kind of apology

nynbrada:
In a nutshell contemptuosly using the word 'christian' does not in anyway change the fact that it means one who belong/ follow /or immitate the person of christ.
- And if that is the root meaning of it, and however it is being used despitefully, i will gladly love to be called by such name/appellation.

The bible clearly endorses Jesus as the Christ and tells what Christ means.
Christ means the Promised One, the Messiah or literally translated the ''Anointed One''

The word Christian, is legacy nickname for the disciples invented by the residents of Antioch

Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, who once wrote: ''Those who were vulgarly known by the name of Christians''

Peter saying suffer as a Christian is not implying, or saying the early christians and apostles called themselves christians

When I posted that the early christians and apostles never called themselves christians,
you counter-posted with:
Just a point of correction, Well i actually think that the reverse might be the case. As we can see from the following verse of scripture (sic)
putting forward 1 Peter 4:16 as evidence that early christians and apostles called themselves christians

Well, context is king, which is referring to 1 Peter 4:15-16 and keeping to Peter's train of thought in the verses
Now, nynbrada please honestly answer these questions:
If I say:
nynbrada, of course, you shouldnt suffer for being a murderer, thief, criminal, or troublemaker
but if you suffer as a nigger, dont be ashamed; but glorify God that you bear this name.

Am I calling you a nigger?
Did I call you a nigger?
Would a sane fellow black man call you a nigger?
Would you call yourself a nigger?
Would you answer back to being called a nigger?
What kind of person would want to call you a nigger?
Why would anyone/someone want to make you suffer as a nigger?

As earlier and all along insinuated, just like the term nigger, an anti-Black word, was created by the world (e.g. white supremacists, racists, slave owners etcetra)
from bastardizing the word niger (i.e. niger being used before the Slavery era to describe a black man or as used in Acts 13:1 for one of the disciple of Jesus)
and then used as nickname in a derogatory manner in reference to the black man
so the term Christian, an anti/gainst-Christ word, was created by the world (e.g. Jewish community Antioch residents, King Agrippa, heathens, non-believers etcetera)
and used as nicknames in a derogatory, contemptuous ridicule or mockery manner in reference to believer-disciples of Jesus

Now there were in the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} that was at Antioch prophets and teachers:
Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger
and Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul
- Acts 13:1

From the earliest usage of the word Christian, it was a term used by the Jewish community Antioch residents, King Agrippa etcetera for the early disciples
The name originated with unbelievers who despised the early disciples or true believers
and it carried with it a strong public condemnation, dislike, contempt and rejection for all that disciples are, what the disciples represent and what the aim of the disciples as in Matthew 28:19a is about

Therefore having gone, disciple all the nations, baptizing them
- Matthew 28:19a

Paul was willing to put into practice Matthew 28:19a
and especially pleased to have an opportunity of preaching the gospel to kings and rulers.
Discipling King Agrippa was exactly what Paul was doing when he tried to teach, instruct
and help King Agrippa to progressively to know about and learn the Word of God to become a matured, growing disciple

Paul tried to intimate King Agrippa in the truths of Scripture and the lifestyle required
but King Agrippa in Acts 26:28, wouldn't have any of that, so the king threw the gospel et al, back in Paul's face
and made the infamous sarcastic and disdained comment that Paul wants to turn him into a christian

That King Agrippa's comment in Acts 26:28, to Paul, was spoken and meant to be unflattering, unkind, insulting, disrespectful and demeaning, the same way the word nigger is meant to be when used

Agrippa answered, ''In brief, you are doing your best to persuade me to become a Christian''
- Acts 26:28

A christian is a follower of the religion of Christ,
- this is a world’s point of view,
and it's a misperception or misinterpretation of who a believer, disciple, saint, son of God, or who a called-out-one is

Believers themselves, just as with no denomination (e.g. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Celestial, RCCG, Christ Embassy, JW etcetera), know they have no religion
and that what they, believers, have, is a relationship with the Godhead,
- a relationship centrally and/or particurlarly with God, the Father,
and the relationship is grounded with/in Love, bonded with Faith and Grace

Believers, if pressed for a religion, might succumb to the label ''christian'', if not chanced to properly educate

Bottom line, this has nothing to do with making a mountian out of a mole hill
but more like, if care is not taken to properly understand and be right about little easy, peasy truths such as about the ''christian'' label,
then how are we going to fare when confronted with heavier, larger or difficult truths?
- like it wasnt even ''christian' to start with

I'll leave you with 1 Peter 4:15-16 verses to stew and ponder on
towards accepting and admitting that Peter NEVER called anyone christian in 1 Peter 4:16

I sincerely hope you looking at the original text and see how it originally reads,
instead of all these various translations,
will help you re-structure your thinking on this issue.

Enjoy.
And God bless

MizMyColi:
#Meditate

The word Enlightenment conjures up the idea of some superhuman accomplishment, and the ego likes to keep it that way. But it is simply our natural state of felt oneness with being. It is essentially you, yet is much greater than you. It's like a paradox.

The inability to feel the connectedness, this oneness with your being is what gives rise to the illusion of separation, it is what breeds the lie that you longer hold it together, that you're falling apart.


Think on this this morning and have a nice day ahead‎

Nubian113,

come and be reminded of the Power of Meditation. I have just done my 15 minutes and I feel replenished.
What about you? I hope you are not neglecting the most powerful process.

MizMyColi:
The Divine essence we popular refer to as God is best addressed as Spirit, or source, or creator

That Spirit, or Source, or Creator is God, period
God being a proper noun wherever and whenever it refers to YHWH
God and/or god, always had been, either of two possible connotations comprising of: Influencer/influencer and Judge/judge.

Depending on which side of the Influencer/influencer and Judge/judge fence, anything and anyone can be God and/or god
If on the former's side of the fence, there are ample examples, such as mammon the deity for riches, drugs, sex
If on the latter's side of the fence, well this is raised where mentioned two sections below

Anyway, without verbiage, Exodus 4:14-16 and Exodus 7:1, are some bird's-eye view verses, if noting the usage of the word in relation to Moses with Pharaoh and Aaron respectively, to help demystify the import or essence of the word God/god with

¹⁴And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite?
I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
¹⁵And thou shalt speak unto him, and put the words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
¹⁶And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God.
- Exodus 4:14-16

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
- Exodus 7:1

MizMyColi:
If you notice, Jesus never used the Word "God"

Jesus used the word ''God''
Notice He used the word ''God'' as part of the fourth word out of seven spoken on the cross
After starting with Father, used in His first words out of seven words spoken on the cross, He used the word ''God'' at an appropriate place and crucial time to acknowlege the power behind the culminating predetermined course of events and without doubts confirmed it is His destiny.

MizMyColi:
The only time he used the term was when he referred to us as "Gods"...

Hmm, care to share where exactly was the only time He used the term when he referred to us as "Gods"...

When ''He referred to us as ''gods''... sic, Jesus was reference-quoting Psalm 82:6
He was contextually implying you are "gods", as in like biblical Israelite righteous judges such as Deborah, Samson, Gideon, Jephthah etcetera, chosen by God to rescue the Israelites from their enemies and establish justice among the people.
If Deborah, Samson, Gideon, Jephthah etcetera are known as ''gods'', what's with the Pharisee' having a bad hair day over Jesus making Himself out to be God, was what Jesus was implying in John 10:33-38

MizMyColi:
He used "The Father or My Father"

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, The Everlasting, Prince of Peace
- Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:6 above, is an offshoot of John 3:16

The Israelites, until verses like Luke 2:49 never had the concept of seeing God as a Father
and before taught with other verses such as Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2 never had the boldness of calling God, Father
Jesus came to bridge that gap, for all to have a meaningful, affectionate, loving relationship with a God, who can be Fatherly

MizMyColi:
Once you give a name to something, you limit it. It can only work as far as your mind wills it to

Adam shouldnt have bothered with the naming exercise in Eden then
Anything known has a name
Ask Moses, whether knowing who are dealing with, knowing the name of who is sending you on an errand or mission breeds confidence or not

MizMyColi:
This being we refer to as God is more than that. It, as the source/father is the highest expression of it all

But as many as received Him,
He gave to them authority to be children of God -- to those believing in His name
- John 1:12

This being we refer to as God is more than that.
Yes His name is YHWH and has this yearning desire to be Father to whomsoever has blood relationship with the Godhood
but if God is YHWH aka I AM THAT I AM, then there is more than meets the eye about Him
thus leaving God, after Fatherhood, to be whatever God needs to be, wants to be or has to be

MizMyColi:
This Spirit fills all things with it/himself - ALL in ALL. When this spirit inhabits a body, it becomes a soul. An individualised Spirit is the soul

Also, the presence of God is everywhere

⁷Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
⁸If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there
- Psalm 139:7-8

All bodies have souls, which can either be dead or living souls
LIVING souls come about when this spirit and breath of God inhabits a body
Man is made up of spirit, soul and body.
The life of the flesh is the blood and so the body dies when the heart stops pumping blood
The life of the soul is the spirit, and so the soul without the spirit, is a dead soul
When the breath of God in a body returns back to God, the soul vacates the body and goes to a holding place

[size=4pt]MizyB, brakelights? You know how it is. No Oliver Twist things, but it sure looks like 24/7 sometimes isnt enough. Pardon me, will get back asap about the last twin or combo.[/size]

MizMyColi:
[size=14pt]INTRODUCTION/FOREWORD[/size]


*****
There are more advanced stages of human development. As a person reaches this advanced level of spiritual maturity, extraordinary capacities begin to blossom: of love, vitality, personhood, bodily awareness, intuition, perception, communication and volition.
*****

****
There are no absolute boundaries between the body/ego and the totality of existence.
The belief that thoughts, attitudes and healing intentions of an individual can influence the physiology of another person is very well supported by scientific studies into the healing power of prayer.
*****


*****
The crowning glory of human development does not rest in our ability to think and reason, although this is what separates us from animals.

Our ultimate Destiny....
Is to reconnect with our essential being and express from our extraordinary, a divine reality which we translate into the ordinary physical world, Moment by Moment....
*****

You've gone astray, sister.

Jesus only is our messiah

MizMyColi:
The unaccredited Institute of Noetic Sciences describes noetic sciences as "how beliefs, thoughts, and intentions affect the physical world".

You know you should read my poem "The Ism".

flamingREED:
You've gone astray, sister.
Jesus only is our messiah

Speak for yourself bro.