- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Baker @ Aug. 26 2010,01:27) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 25 2010,15:21) Martian, barley, Marty………….right on brothers, Preexistence is nothing but a false teaching deriving its source from the trinitarians and created to backup their Jesus is a GOD dogmas. Thank GOD of you guise at least some see and understand this. Barley i believe verse 16 and 17 are talking about GOD the Father himself also brother. peace and love to you all………………………………………gene
All of your beef is in the Scriptures and should not be in the person that wants to go by those Scriptures. I rather believe them, that translated those Scriptures, then any of you here. If it would only be one Scripture, I could maybe go along with you…. However there are several Scriptures that either talk about the firstborn of all creation or that by Jesus own words says, that He was in Heaven with His Father. Just to talk about Jesus and ignoring that He will come back as The Word of God in Rev. 19:13-16 is wrong, to say the least…. I had asked you gene the question if the description in Rev, 19 could fit any other person? Yet you also ignore that…..There is no other Being that has a robe on dipped in blood, and that will come again with thousands of Angels on white Horses…..there is no one that fits the description that He is called KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Who is it, if not Jesus who was and is The Word of God, no word from Jehovah God can become flesh, or has ever been seen, except Him who was with His Father in Heaven, before the world was….John 17:5 Scripture says so….
John 1:1-15
John 3:17
John 3:12-15
6:38-40
8:58
17:5
Rev. 19:13-16
You all are ignoring all of these Scriptures, if you want to believe what gene is saying. Scriptures say something else and gene says it is according to the Trinitarian doctrine. The trinity has nothing to do with it….There is no talk about God's Holy Spirit at all…. ..Three person in one?
Give me a break!!!!!
Peace Irene
Baker,We are not ignoring them. There are simpler, more plausible truths being taught by the scriptures that you listed.
None of the verses you listed require that JC is God or even preexisted for those verses to make sense in the light of the rest of scripture.
Jesus Christ is the perfect human being, the son of God, that did what Adam and Eve (the only other perfect human beings) did not. He completely trusted God and His word. No one else ever did that.
He emptied himself of his own desires and humbled himself to obey God completely. Therefore God highly exalted him.
He is the one man that did not need a savior, yet he humbled himself to obey to his own death, even the death of the cross.
barley
Hello Barley,
So much truth and then the addition:
YOU: He emptied himself “of his own desires” and humbled himself to obey God completely.
BIBLE: Phl 2:6-7 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
ME: He emptied himself from the form of God and took on the form of a bond-servant…..in the likeness of men.
Does this sound more probable?
The Professor
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 27 2010,14:53) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 26 2010,19:11) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 26 2010,10:28) Quote (Baker @ Aug. 26 2010,08:27) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 25 2010,15:21) Martian, barley, Marty………….right on brothers, Preexistence is nothing but a false teaching deriving its source from the trinitarians and created to backup their Jesus is a GOD dogmas. Thank GOD of you guise at least some see and understand this. Barley i believe verse 16 and 17 are talking about GOD the Father himself also brother. peace and love to you all………………………………………gene
All of your beef is in the Scriptures and should not be in the person that wants to go by those Scriptures. I rather believe them, that translated those Scriptures, then any of you here. If it would only be one Scripture, I could maybe go along with you…. However there are several Scriptures that either talk about the firstborn of all creation or that by Jesus own words says, that He was in Heaven with His Father. Just to talk about Jesus and ignoring that He will come back as The Word of God in Rev. 19:13-16 is wrong, to say the least…. I had asked you gene the question if the description in Rev, 19 could fit any other person? Yet you also ignore that…..There is no other Being that has a robe on dipped in blood, and that will come again with thousands of Angels on white Horses…..there is no one that fits the description that He is called KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Who is it, if not Jesus who was and is The Word of God, no word from Jehovah God can become flesh, or has ever been seen, except Him who was with His Father in Heaven, before the world was….John 17:5 Scripture says so….
John 1:1-15
John 3:17
John 3:12-15
6:38-40
8:58
17:5
Rev. 19:13-16
You all are ignoring all of these Scriptures, if you want to believe what gene is saying. Scriptures say something else and gene says it is according to the Trinitarian doctrine. The trinity has nothing to do with it….There is no talk about God's Holy Spirit at all…. ..Three person in one? Give me a break!!!!!
Peace Irene
hi Ireneyou so right ,they blind themselves to most of the bible scriptures,
and there conclusions are for that reason false,they must have a allegiance to a religion denomination interest,to do just that.
true Christians know if it does not apply in harmony of all scriptures it is false in the conclusion,
this is how we can see the works of the false brothers and the hypocrites just like at the time of Christ,
this was one of the reasons why Christ said “you do not know the scriptures” to the doctors of the LAW and the pharisees.
THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH OF GOD ,NOT OF MEN.
Pierre
Hi Pierre, Irene, and Mike,I am a little naive. What religion teaches against a pre-existence?
That may explain why these people don't want to believe Scripture and go out of their way explaining Jewish culture, etc.
However, Paul was writing to Gentiles that had little to no knowledge of the OT or Jewish traditions and culture….and could care less.
v15 “He” (JC) is the Subject of the paragraph and it doesn't change. Whereas God is the object in this one verse, only.
v18 repeats “He is also….”
Even when the Father is mentioned again in v19 “Him” refers back to JC. v 20 “Himself” talks about His cross and is hard to deceive people…thru a fictitious explanation.
Let me know this “religion”, please.
The Professor
DBFhere it is;;Denial of the doctrine
Throughout history there have been various groups and individuals believing that Jesus' existence began when he was conceived. Those denying the pre-existence of Christ can be broadly divided into two streams:1. Those who nevertheless accept the virgin birth. This includes Socinians,[24] and early Unitarians such as John Biddle,[25] and Nathaniel Lardner.[26] Today the view is primarily held by Christadelphians.[27]
2. Those who also deny the virgin birth. This includes Ebionites and later Unitarians, such as Joseph Priestley,[28][29][30], Thomas Jefferson,[31][32] as well as modern Unitarian Universalists. This view is often described as adoptionism, and in the 19th Century was also called psilanthropism. Samuel Taylor Coleridge described himself as having once been a psilanthropist, believing Jesus to be the “real son of Joseph.”[33] Friedrich Schleiermacher, sometimes called “the father of liberal theology”,[34] was one of many German theologians who departed from the idea of personal ontological pre-existence of Christ, teaching that “Christ was not God but was created as the ideal and perfect man whose sinlessness constituted his divinity.”[34] Similarly Albrecht Ritschl rejected the pre-existence of Christ, asserting that Christ was the “Son of God” only in the sense that “God had revealed himself in Christ”[34] and Christ “accomplished a religious and ethical work in us which only God could have done.”[34] Later, Rudolf Bultmann described the pre-existence of Christ as “not only irrational but utterly meaningless.”[35]
Pierre
I would be most interested in knowing what you mean by virgin birth.Or rather, let's ask what how scripture defines virgin.
Does it mean the same as the English meaning?
Matthew 1:20 makes it very clear that the angel told Joseph not to put away his wife, but to accept her, for she did what God had in mind for her.
Mary was Joseph's wife in this verse.
“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. “
Joseph was hesitating in consummating the marriage.
If he did, he would have more trouble putting her away later.
He was a just man.
He wanted to do the right thing.
With the further information that the angel gave to Joseph, Joseph was no longer fearful to take to him his wife.
He took her with full assurance that it was the right thing to do.
Joseph consummated the marriage.
He, Joseph, had sex with Mary, his wife.
Joseph and Mary had other children after Jesus Christ was born.
How cruel for some to think that God would deny Mary the pleasures of sex with her husband.
Sex is very good.
See Genesis 1.Everything that God made.. He called very good.
That includes the sexual organs and their intended use between husband and wife.
24 Then Joseph being rai
sed from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.Biblically, the word knew in this context refers to sex that results in pregnancy.
Note also the word firstborn.
God does not say only born here in Matthew.
Firstborn implies at least a second born.
I like what Rudolph Bultman said.
” Later, Rudolf Bultmann described the pre-existence of Christ as “not only irrational but utterly meaningless.”
“not only irrational but utterly meaningless.”
I couldn't have said it better myself.
barley
Quote (barley @ Aug. 28 2010,18:42) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 27 2010,14:53) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 26 2010,19:11) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 26 2010,10:28) Quote (Baker @ Aug. 26 2010,08:27) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 25 2010,15:21) Martian, barley, Marty………….right on brothers, Preexistence is nothing but a false teaching deriving its source from the trinitarians and created to backup their Jesus is a GOD dogmas. Thank GOD of you guise at least some see and understand this. Barley i believe verse 16 and 17 are talking about GOD the Father himself also brother. peace and love to you all………………………………………gene
All of your beef is in the Scriptures and should not be in the person that wants to go by those Scriptures. I rather believe them, that translated those Scriptures, then any of you here. If it would only be one Scripture, I could maybe go along with you…. However there are several Scriptures that either talk about the firstborn of all creation or that by Jesus own words says, that He was in Heaven with His Father. Just to talk about Jesus and ignoring that He will come back as The Word of God in Rev. 19:13-16 is wrong, to say the least…. I had asked you gene the question if the description in Rev, 19 could fit any other person? Yet you also ignore that…..There is no other Being that has a robe on dipped in blood, and that will come again with thousands of Angels on white Horses…..there is no one that fits the description that He is called KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Who is it, if not Jesus who was and is The Word of God, no word from Jehovah God can become flesh, or has ever been seen, except Him who was with His Father in Heaven, before the world was….John 17:5 Scripture says so….
John 1:1-15
John 3:17
John 3:12-15
6:38-40
8:58
17:5
Rev. 19:13-16
You all are ignoring all of these Scriptures, if you want to believe what gene is saying. Scriptures say something else and gene says it is according to the Trinitarian doctrine. The trinity has nothing to do with it….There is no talk about God's Holy Spirit at all…. ..Three person in one? Give me a break!!!!!
Peace Irene
hi Ireneyou so right ,they blind themselves to most of the bible scriptures,
and there conclusions are for that reason false,they must have a allegiance to a religion denomination interest,to do just that.
true Christians know if it does not apply in harmony of all scriptures it is false in the conclusion,
this is how we can see the works of the false brothers and the hypocrites just like at the time of Christ,
this was one of the reasons why Christ said “you do not know the scriptures” to the doctors of the LAW and the pharisees.
THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH OF GOD ,NOT OF MEN.
Pierre
Hi Pierre, Irene, and Mike,I am a little naive. What religion teaches against a pre-existence?
That may explain why these people don't want to believe Scripture and go out of their way explaining Jewish culture, etc.
However, Paul was writing to Gentiles that had little to no knowledge of the OT or Jewish traditions and culture….and could care less.
v15 “He” (JC) is the Subject of the paragraph and it doesn't change. Whereas God is the object in this one verse, only.
v18 repeats “He is also….”
Even when the Father is mentioned again in v19 “Him” refers back to JC. v 20 “Himself” talks about His cross and is hard to deceive people…thru a fictitious explanation.
Let me know this “religion”, please.
The Professor
DBFhere it is;;Denial of the doctrine
Throughout history there have been various groups and individuals believing that Jesus' existence began when he was conceived. Those denying the pre-existence of Christ can be broadly divided into two streams:1. Those who nevertheless accept the virgin birth. This includes Socinians,[24] and early Unitarians such as John Biddle,[25] and Nathaniel Lardner.[26] Today the view is primarily held by Christadelphians.[27]
2. Those who also deny the virgin birth. This includes Ebionites and later Unitarians, such as Joseph Priestley,[28][29][30], Thomas Jefferson,[31][32] as well as modern Unitarian Universalists. This view is often described as adoptionism, and in the 19th Century was also called psilanthropism. Samuel Taylor Coleridge described himself as having once been a psilanthropist, believing Jesus to be the “real son of Joseph.”[33] Friedrich Schleiermacher, sometimes called “the father of liberal theology”,[34] was one of many German theologians who departed from the idea of personal ontological pre-existence of Christ, teaching that “Christ was not God but was created as the ideal and perfect man whose sinlessness constituted his divinity.”[34] Similarly Albrecht Ritschl rejected the pre-existence of Christ, asserting that Christ was the “Son of God” only in the sense that “God had revealed himself in Christ”[34] and Christ “accomplished a religious and ethical work in us which only God could have done.”[34] Later, Rudolf Bultmann described the pre-existence of Christ as “not only irrational but utterly meaningless.”[35]
Pierre
I would be most interested in knowing what you mean by virgin birth.Or rather, let's ask what how scripture defines virgin.
Does it mean the same as the English meaning?
Matthew 1:20 makes it very clear that the angel told Joseph not to put away his wife, but to accept her, for she did what God had in mind for her.
Mary was Joseph's wife in this verse.
“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. “
Joseph was hesitating in consummating the marriage.
If he did, he would have more trouble putting her away later.
He was a just man.
He wanted to do the right thing.
With the further information that the angel gave to Joseph, Joseph was no longer fearful to take to him his wife.
He took her with full assurance that it was the right thing to do.
Joseph consummated the marriage.
He, Joseph, had sex with Mary, his wife.
Joseph and Mary had other children after Jesus Christ was born.
How cruel for some to think that God would deny Mary the pleasures of sex with her husband.
Sex
is very good.
See Genesis 1.Everything that God made.. He called very good.
That includes the sexual organs and their intended use between husband and wife.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.Biblically, the word knew in this context refers to sex that results in pregnancy.
Note also the word firstborn.
God does not say only born here in Matthew.
Firstborn implies at least a second born.
I like what Rudolph Bultman said.
” Later, Rudolf Bultmann described the pre-existence of Christ as “not only irrational but utterly meaningless.”
“not only irrational but utterly meaningless.”
I couldn't have said it better myself.
barley
BarleyI will make it simple wen i first read this passage i understood that Mary was a clean person who add no sexual relation with men or opposite sex.and that she was promised to Joseph in marriage.
and then came they angel for Jesus birth.
and I still believe that.did I miss something ?
Pierre
I find it interesting that Mike uses the term “imply” in his opening for this and other threads. In many references the word means the following –
implied – Suggested without being stated directly en.wiktionary.org/wiki/implied
This is true because there is no specific clear scripture that says simply that Christ pre-existed. It is all derived by implication. Unfortunately the implication is based on preconceived ideas of what these scriptures mean. Without those preconceived ideas there would be no implication of pre-existence.martian…………Right on ……..I have ask many times for (ONE) specific Scripture that says Jesus Preexisted before His berth. Nothing was ever produced Just questionable scriptures that can be taken that way by forcing the text . Just as where did Jesus ever say he was a GOD, there are not that say that so they just force the text to try to force their false conclusions. While all the time saying the truly love the Truth. But thanks be to God that some do know the difference and understand and are lead by the Spirit of Truth. I give thanks to GOD for that.
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………….gene
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 28 2010,11:32) Hello Barley, So much truth and then the addition:
YOU: He emptied himself “of his own desires” and humbled himself to obey God completely.
BIBLE: Phl 2:6-7 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
ME: He emptied himself from the form of God and took on the form of a bond-servant…..in the likeness of men.
Does this sound more probable?
The Professor
And you left out the context.
Have this attitude in you that was in Jesus Christ. Is “the form of God” or as you say “God” an attitude?
If not then it must be speaking about something else.
Even if you say it is an example of him becoming humble, how does that give me an example I can actually follow? I will never be a God that is required to humble myself.
HOWEVER —
If he is the first perfected man. The one who is appointed king over all the Earth. the one that never gave up his position of dominence over the Earth and could have taken the position of King of Israel and the world and ruled us all and gave that up to become a servant, I can relate to that. He was normally human with great power and authority as we are supposed to, and can have and yet we are to be servants to our brothers. There is an example I can not only get a mental image about. I can also follow in his steps.Quote (martian @ Aug. 29 2010,03:54) I find it interesting that Mike uses the term “imply” in his opening for this and other threads. In many references the word means the following –
implied – Suggested without being stated directly en.wiktionary.org/wiki/implied
Hi Martian,I openly challenge you to find one single scripture in which we don't have to search for the “implication” of what is meant.
We always have many definitons that the Hebrew and Greek words could have meant. We have to conject a meaning of what was “implied” by what bests fits the context, the circumstances and the rest of scripture.
For example, take the shortest verse in the Bible, “Jesus wept”. Do you think that “implies” that Jesus shed tears? Do you think that “implies” that Jesus openly and loudly wailed? Did Jesus cry tears of joy knowing that he would soon raise Lazarus? Or was it a mournful wailing representing his broken heart? Was it just overwhelming sadness brought on by the realization of how much human beings hurt when loved ones leave us? Was he caught up in the moment because of all the other mourners?
What do you think those two simple words “imply”?
mike
Quote (martian @ Aug. 30 2010,05:48) And you left out the context.
Have this attitude in you that was in Jesus Christ. Is “the form of God” or as you say “God” an attitude?
Martian,The passage is about having the same attitude as Christ, who wasn't afraid to leave his cushy postition at the right hand of God to suffer as a human being and be killed for us.
He left his “comfort zone” and put his wants and desires below the needs of others.
That's the context.
mike
Hey Gene,
Did you ever figure out how the last part of 16, which says, “all things were created by him, and for him”, could really mean “for him and for him”? This is the whole reason I posted this Colossians passage before a couple of others that I really wanted to post first.
I want you to see that things were created “by” or “through” Jesus. Do you see that yet?
mike
Mike,
You make some good points..stressing over trivialness.Was Jesus at his Father's righthand before he became man and was raised again?
The point of 'All things were made by him and for him' is not a mystery…
Since the 'Firstborn' inherits the Father's possessions, …and All things done in the Father's name (Power and Authority) is attributed to the 'Firstborn' (Just as the Chief Architect is attributed with the building of the house despite MANY OTHERS contributing), so 'Jesus' alone is attributed with the creation. The creation is 'For' the inheritance of the firsborn, and it is the creation 'Of' the firstborn…by designation and inheritance.Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 31 2010,00:21) Mike,
You make some good points..stressing over trivialness.
Hi JA,Who's stressing? Surely not I.
You asked:
Quote Was Jesus at his Father's righthand before he became man and was raised again?
I would say yes. We know he was raised back to his previous glory and position, right? And since he is now at the right hand of his Father……..You said:
Quote so 'Jesus' alone is attributed with the creation.
I'm not sure I've ever read that in scripture. In fact, I know it is the Father who created all things THROUGH His Son. I know this from the scriptures, JA.peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 30 2010,16:40) Hey Gene, Did you ever figure out how the last part of 16, which says, “all things were created by him, and for him”, could really mean “for him and for him”? This is the whole reason I posted this Colossians passage before a couple of others that I really wanted to post first.
I want you to see that things were created “by” or “through” Jesus. Do you see that yet?
mike
bump for Gene and Martian and Marty and barleyMike, No, according to Gene, Marty, Barley and all they are right, According to Hermas, which used to be considered cannon
The parable of the Field
The son of God is the Holy Spirit, the son was made to dwell in human flesh, the man Jesus, then Jesus became co-heir with the son,
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y262056
I believe this,
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 31 2010,00:21) Mike,
You make some good points..stressing over trivialness.Was Jesus at his Father's righthand before he became man and was raised again?
The point of 'All things were made by him and for him' is not a mystery…
Since the 'Firstborn' inherits the Father's possessions, …and All things done in the Father's name (Power and Authority) is attributed to the 'Firstborn' (Just as the Chief Architect is attributed with the building of the house despite MANY OTHERS contributing), so 'Jesus' alone is attributed with the creation. The creation is 'For' the inheritance of the firsborn, and it is the creation 'Of' the firstborn…by designation and inheritance.
JA……….You have it right. Mike does not understand that. The whole creation was for the Purpose of Jesus' inheritance, and ours also we are Joint heirs with Jesus it says. The complete Creation is for this Purpose.Isa 51:16 And I put (MY) words in thy mouth, and with the shadow of My hand have covered thee. To (PLANT THE HEAVENS), and to found earth, and to say to Zion, My people are you.
All this is being created for Jesus and Us who are (IN) Christ Jesus, we are co- heirs With him in all this. and it was the intention and plan of God all along, Thay we inherit it with Jesus. IMO
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 31 2010,11:44) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 30 2010,16:40) Hey Gene, Did you ever figure out how the last part of 16, which says, “all things were created by him, and for him”, could really mean “for him and for him”? This is the whole reason I posted this Colossians passage before a couple of others that I really wanted to post first.
I want you to see that things were created “by” or “through” Jesus. Do you see that yet?
mike
bump for Gene and Martian and Marty and barley
Mike ………..If all things were created (BY) Jesus. Then GOD is a lier and deceiving us . Notice MikeIsa 44:24….> Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, (I) an the LORD that (MAKES ALL THINGS; THAT STRETCHES FORTH THE HEAVENS, (ALONE); that spreads abroad the earth (BY MYSELF).
Now Mike what part of that you don't understand and thwre many other scriptures that say the same thing , But you along with the other Preexistences push a false concept the Jesus Created everything saying everything was created (BY) Jesus. Then when challenges you resort to say GOD did it (THROUGH) Jesus, But as i have Posted GOD takes full credit for all creation (ALONE) and said He did it BY HIMSELF> so you are asking us to reject scriptures that show God (ALONE and BY HIMSELF) did it by excepting words you use that can be translated many way as any concordance will show.
Mike you preexistences and the Trinitarians are both in the same boat of deception brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Sep. 01 2010,01:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 31 2010,11:44) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 30 2010,16:40) Hey Gene, Did you ever figure out how the last part of 16, which says, “all things were created by him, and for him”, could really mean “for him and for him”? This is the whole reason I posted this Colossians passage before a couple of others that I really wanted to post first.
I want you to see that things were created “by” or “through” Jesus. Do you see that yet?
mike
bump for Gene and Martian and Marty and barley
Mike ………..If all things were created (BY) Jesus. Then GOD is a lier and deceiving us . Notice MikeIsa 44:24….> Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, (I) an the LORD that (MAKES ALL THINGS; THAT STRETCHES FORTH THE HEAVENS, (ALONE); that spreads abroad the earth (BY MYSELF).
Now Mike what part of that you don't understand and thwre many other scriptures that say the same thing , But you along with the other Preexistences push a false concept the Jesus Created everything saying everything was created (BY) Jesus. Then when challenges you resort to say GOD did it (THROUGH) Jesus, But as i have Posted GOD takes full credit for all creation (ALONE) and said He did it BY HIMSELF> so you are asking us to reject scriptures that show God (ALONE and BY HIMSELF) did it by excepting words you use that can be translated many way as any concordance will show.
Mike you preexistences and the Trinitarians are both in the same boat of deception brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Hi Gene,I myself never cared for the rendering of the word “by”. I think those verses ALWAYS mean “by means of” or “through”, so don't put words in my mouth. Didn't you even read what I just posted to JA after he said Jesus created everything? How then can you turn right around and say something like this to me?
And for the 20th time, when God said those words through Isaiah, many people were living. We know that God ALONE created all of them, because He said so. But could it be that He alone created them THROUGH their parents?
YES or NO GENE.
And please, please, please answer the purple question above with a direct answer. I'm getting tired of asking the same questions over and over just for you to ignore them over and over.
mike
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 31 2010,23:13) Mike, No, according to Gene, Marty, Barley and all they are right, According to Hermas, which used to be considered cannon The parable of the Field
The son of God is the Holy Spirit, the son was made to dwell in human flesh, the man Jesus, then Jesus became co-heir with the son,
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y262056
I believe this,
That's very nice Shimmer.You answered “NO”. Okay, then tell me how BOTH of the words at the end of Col 1:16 could possibly mean “for”. One of them can mean “for”, but then the other HAS TO MEAN either “by” or “through” or “by means of”, etc.
Which is it?
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
