- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2011,05:27) Mike, Read the Nicene Creed and tell me whether or not you believe it:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Thanks,
Kathi
Kathi,All of it is scriptural except for the words I've made red:
“not made” – Those words are not in scripture anywhere.
“one substance with the Father” – Neither can these words be found in any scripture.
“by” – The implication is “through”. But the word “by” is also acceptable, as in: “I sent you the money by Western Union”. This use of “by” doesn't imply that Western Union is the one who GAVE you the money, but instead the one “by whom”, “THROUGH whom”, or “by means of whom” I gave it to you. Scripture says that all things are FROM God, and THROUGH Jesus. There is a big distinction, as Tertullian logically points out. I believe you guys can see the distinction, you just won't allow yourselves to acknowledge it.
“incarnate BY the Holy Spirit” – the same thing I said about the word “by” above applies here. If the meaning is that Jesus was incarnate BY God THROUGH His Holy Spirit, then I'm okay with this part. As is, the wording is confusing, as it seems to imply that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus – something we know is not true.
“the Lord and Giver of Life” – no scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is “Lord” over anyone, nor that IT gave life to anyone. God gave life THROUGH His Holy Spirit, which is why IT is called “the Holy Spirit OF God”.
“who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified” – Absolute blasphemy and totally unscriptural.
The Creed you posted is from 381, Kathi. The Nicene Creed that I agree with is the one from 325. Compare the two side by side on Wikipedia, and see how in just 56 years, man went from “And we believe in the Holy Spirit”, to what is said about the Holy Spirit in the 381 Creed that you posted.
Can you not see this whole thing is of men, who were obviously making it up as they went along? That is why there are so many comically nonsensical explanations used to support this doctrine of Satan – because these men didn't think ahead before they spouted off their imaginations. At the time they thought they were safe, because no one but clergy had access to the actual scriptures. They couldn't see thousands of years into the future, to a time when a NOVICE like me – a man who opened a Bible only three short years ago – could have unlimited access to hundreds of lexicons and morphologies BY the internet. (And no, the word “by” here does NOT mean the internet is what actually GIVES me this information. Scholars GIVE me the information THROUGH the internet. So you can truthfully say that all this information comes FROM scholars, THROUGH the internet. Or………you could also word it as I did, using the words “by the internet”, to achieve the same meaning.)
But Kathi, even using the 381 Creed, take a good hard look at who the “Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible” is. And then ask yourself if, according to the same Creed, Jesus IS the ONE called “God, the Father Almighty”, or if he is OF that One. And once you acknowledge that, according to the very words you agree with, Jesus is OF the ONE who made the heavens, the earth, and all things in them, then to be honest with yourself, you'll also have to acknowledge that he must be one of the “all things visible and invisible” that was made BY that ONE called “God, the Father Almighty”.
peace,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ Nov. 09 2011,11:25) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 10 2011,03:40) KJ Quote Mike creates the difference himself thus showing himself to be the novice he is. KJ creates the difference himself thus showing himself to be the novice he is
is this not equal to all men ?
Pierre
How about offering an intelligent reply.
Why Jack? So you can ignore the reply just to pop in a few days later with another “hit and run”?
Let's see how you do with my next post. Will you actually address it? Or will you disappear, only to come back in a couple of days pretending that I never even addressed your point?
Time will tell………………
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Nov. 09 2011,09:45) Mike's reference to Acts 4:24 has been dealt with before. The word “poieo” often means “to appoint” or “to ordain.” It means that the Father ordained the creation.
Okay Jack, so the word “poieo” can mean “appoint”, OR it can mean “create”. You won't be so fortunate with the following scripture:Revelation 4:11
11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”Now we know from verse 9 that the “Lord and God” who “created all things” is “Him who sits on the throne”. And we know from 5:1-7 that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN “Him who sits on the throne”, because Jesus actually takes a scroll FROM THE HAND OF “Him who sits on the throne”.
So it is clear that Jesus is not even a PART OF the “Him who sits on the throne” and “created all things”, because Jesus is a completely different BEING, represented as the SACRIFICIAL LAMB that “Him who sits on the throne” offered up as a ransom sacrifice for us. (God so loved the world that He GAVE His Son…………)
But here's the good part, Jack:
The word translated as “created” in Rev 4:11 is NOT “poieo”, but “ektisas” – a form of “ktizo”. This is what Strong says about “ktizo”:
Definition: I create, form (ORIGINALLY), shape, make, always of God.And HELPS Word Studies adds:
2936 ktízō – properly, create, which applies only to God who alone can make what was “not there before”So this word “ktizo”, two different forms of which are used in 4:11, refers to the creating of things that were not there before, and it is used only of God, according to the two sources quoted above. And the God it is used of in Rev 4:11 is someone OTHER THAN the Lamb that takes the scroll from His hand. So, if Jesus is NOT the God who created ALL things, then he has no choice but to be one of the things created BY that God.
peace,
mikeKangaroo wrote:[/quote]
DUPLICATED TO CORRECT NUMEROUS TYPO ERRORS. PLEASE DELETE POST ABOVE.Give it up Mike! Your attempts to create artificial differences between “in” and “through” show how weak your position really is. Look up the word in any Greek lexicon and you will see that “ev” and “dia” may mean the same thing. Offer us something substantive please.
As long as passages like Hebrews 1:8-10 are in the scripture you will NEVER be able to debunk Trinitarianism. At least Bodhitharta is honest enough to say that the passage is “corrupt” and does not belong in the Bible.
The WHOLE of chapter 1 is about the supremacy of the Son. Verses 5-7 contain remarks by the Father about the Son. Verses 8-10 contain remarks by the Father to the Son. The Father Himself says that the heavens and the earth were created by the Son's hands.
Therefore, the word “poieo” in Acts 4:24 MUST mean that the Father “made” the creation in the sense that He “ordained” it to come into being for there are no contradictions in the Bible. Both the Father and the Son could not have been the “hands on” creator and the Father says that the Son is the hands on creator.
You insist that “poieo” must mean “create.” Well that's funny. Strong's says that it means to “make or do in a WIDE VARIETY of applications.” Then he gives a loooong list of meanings and the word “create” does not appear in that list but the words “appoint” and “ordain” do appear.
Another thing is funny. You say that the Father is your God and Jesus is not. Yet you believe what Jesus says about the Father but you don't believe what the Father says about Jesus.
Why do you believe Jesus who is not your God and not believe the Father who you say is your God?
You should just be honest like Bodhitharta and deny that Hebrews 1:8-10 is authentic. This would be more intelligible than your silly “groping in the dark” explanations.
Jack
Jack, did you REALLY just avoid the whole Rev 4:11/ktizo point I made to keep posting about other things?
1. Like Pierre has told you: WHO CARES if it says “in” or “through” anyway? The fact is that all things came FROM God alone. Whether they came “in” or “through” Jesus is besides the point, because they dang sure aren't ever said to have come FROM Jesus. THERE is your big difference.
2. Forget about “poieo”, because I didn't even try to refute the “appointed” meaning.
3. Heb 1:10 refers to Jehovah God, not to Jesus. You yourself said “there are no contradictions in the Bible”. So since YOUR understanding of Heb 1:10 would contradict, not only Rev 4:11, but other scriptures as well, YOUR understanding cannot possibly be the correct one. I offer you the understanding that Paul spoke of the Father in verses 10-12. MY understanding doesn't contradict ANY scripture at all.
Jack, will you address the word “ktizo” in Rev 4:11? Will you address the points of my last post?
mike
Mike,
You said:Quote The Nicene Creed that I agree with is the one from 325 Read this part of the 325 creed and then tell me if you agree with it:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;…
Kathi
kathi
Quote , that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;… Kathi
this is not true to scriptures all what is said in this about Christ
Pierre
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 10 2011,21:32) Mike,
You said:Quote The Nicene Creed that I agree with is the one from 325 Read this part of the 325 creed and then tell me if you agree with it:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;…
Kathi
Yes Kathi,I agree with it…………..with the same understanding that Eusebius wrote to his diocese:
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence.6. In the same way we also admitted “begotten, not made;” since the Council alleged that “made” was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness.
7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is “one in essence” with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien)
Eusebius, who was supposed to have actually penned the Creed, thought of Jesus as a creature, but the only creature to have come directly from the Father – as opposed to the OTHER creatures who came from God through Jesus. He also considered the “begotten, not made” not to exclude Jesus from being originated, but to distinguish him from all the OTHER creatures that were made through him. He also considered the Father to be the ONLY Being who had an “unoriginate nature”.
Here are a couple commentaries on what Eusebius wrote to his diocese:
And though he insists on our Lord being alone, ἐκ θεοῦ, yet he means in the sense that he alone was created immediately from God…………Eusebius distinctly asserts that our Lord is a creature. “This offspring,” he says, “did He first produce Himself from Himself as a foundation of those things which should succeed, the perfect handy-work, δημιούργημα, of the Perfect, and the wise structure, ἀρχιτεκτόνημα, of the Wise,”
Eusebius does not say that our Lord is “from the essence of” the Father, but has “an essence from” the Father. This is the Semi-arian doctrine, which, whether confessing the Son from the essence of the Father or not, implied that His essence was not the Father’s essence, but a second essence.
Eusebius in like manner [after Origen] calls our Lord “another God,” “a second God.”
Kathi,
I agree with Eusebius on all that I've quoted above. (Some of it I've argued on this site before I even realized that Eusebius understood it the same way.)
Jack,
Were you going to address Rev 4:11? Because I have Isaiah 42:5 waiting in the lurch.
Is 42 NET
42:1 “Here is my servant whom I support, my chosen one in whom I take pleasure. I have placed my spirit on him; he will make just decrees for the nations.42:2 He will not cry out or shout; he will not publicize himself in the streets.
42:3 A crushed reed he will not break, a dim wick he will not extinguish; he will faithfully make just decrees.
42:4 He will not grow dim or be crushed before establishing justice on the earth; the coastlands will wait in anticipation for his decrees.”
42:5 This is what the true God, the Lord, says – the one who created the sky and stretched it out, the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it, the one who gives breath to the people on it, and life to those who live on it:
42:6 “I, the Lord, officially commission you; I take hold of your hand. I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people, and a light to the nations,
42:7 to open blind eyes, to release prisoners from dungeons, those who live in darkness from prisons.
42:8 I am the Lord! That is my name! I will not share my glory with anyone else, or the praise due me with idols.
42:9 Look, my earlier predictive oracles have come to pass; now I announce new events. Before they begin to occur, I reveal them to you.”
Jack, do you notice that Jehovah calls Jesus “my servant”? Do you see that Jehovah created everything? Do you see where Jehovah tells Jesus that “YHWH” is “MY Name” – not “OUR Name”? Do you notice that it is to Jesus that Jehovah says, “I will not share my glory with anyone else”?
Jack, do you comprehend that if Jehovah is the ONE who stretched out the heavens and created everything, then His SERVANT, the one He was speaking TO, could not possibly be the ONE who created? Get it? The ONE doing the taking TO Jesus is the ONE who created everything.
Jack, why do you try to give Jehovah's glory to His SERVANT?
Why do you say “Jesus created” when it is clear that Jehovah is the One who did?Mike,
you wrote:Quote Here are a couple commentaries on what Eusebius wrote to his diocese:
And though he insists on our Lord being alone, ἐκ θεοῦ, yet he means in the sense that he alone was created immediately from God…………“he alone was created immediately from God”
You won't find those words in scripture!
Jesus was never referred to as the 'only created son.'It seems like you think that the Father created the Son instead of begetting His Son. I have proven to you in the example of John the Baptist, that the begettal does not designate a beginning of existence as a being so you can not exchange the word 'begotten' for 'created.' Furthermore, if the Father created the Son only and all else was created directly by the Son and indirectly by the Father, then all creatures would be sons of THE Son and the Son would be the one that directly created all things. Now if the Father beget His Son and only His Son did He beget, then all of creation was created, not begotten, directly by or through the Son and indirectly by/through the Father which would definitely make the Son the creator with the Father. The Son was the direct creator and the Father the indirect creator.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 12 2011,22:42)
“he alone was created immediately from God”
You won't find those words in scripture!
Jesus was never referred to as the 'only created son.'
Sure he was, if you base your understanding on ALL of the scriptures, Kathi. That's what Eusebius and I do on this subject.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 12 2011,22:42)
It seems like you think that the Father created the Son instead of begetting His Son.
Jesus was begotten by his God, thereby becoming a creation of his God at the exact moment he was begotten.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 12 2011,22:42)
Furthermore, if the Father created the Son only and all else was created directly by the Son and indirectly by the Father, then all creatures would be sons of THE Son and the Son would be the one that directly created all things
I agree. And since God, not the Son OF God, is the Father of all living things, I would never claim what you just stated.Instead, I claim what the scriptures teach: All things are FROM God and THROUGH Jesus. You should try that sometime. Put your personal wishes aside and just let the scriptures teach you. It is a wonderfully enlightening experience.
Kathi, do you have any comments on what I'm showing Jack in this thread? What do you say about Rev 4:11? What do you think about the Is passage I just quoted for him? Explain to me how Jesus is the Creator in light of these scriptures.
mike
Mike,
you said:Quote Sure he was, if you base your understanding on ALL of the scriptures, Kathi. That's what Eusebius and I do on this subject. No he wasn't ever referred to as the only 'created son.' It refers to Him as an only 'begotten son.' You are twisting the meanings to force it to fit your theology.
Quote Jesus was begotten by his God, thereby becoming a creation of his God at the exact moment he was begotten. Jesus was begotten by His Father before the ages thereby becoming very God from very God, not a creation.
I said:
Quote Furthermore, if the Father created the Son only and all else was created directly by the Son and indirectly by the Father, then all creatures would be sons of THE Son and the Son would be the one that directly created all things you replied:
Quote I agree. And since God, not the Son OF God, is the Father of all living things, I would never claim what you just stated. You claim that the Son was the only thing the Father 'created directly', therefore…all other things were created indirectly by the Father. Is that not what you say? That would mean that all other things were created directly by whom? The Son…hint, hint.
Quote Kathi, do you have any comments on what I'm showing Jack in this thread? What do you say about Rev 4:11? What do you think about the Is passage I just quoted for him? Explain to me how Jesus is the Creator in light of these scriptures. Rev 4:11 is addressing the Father as the creator which He was certainly involved in creation. The passage is not excluding the Son as also being involved in the creation, it is just addressing the Father in this context. In other contexts the Son is addressed as the creator and that is more reason why I see them as being a unity called Jehovah.
The Isaiah passage seems to be the Father speaking about the Son of man which was not involved in creation…the Son of God was involved in creation. The Son of God was not yet the Messiah when He was with the Father in the beginning and all things were created by/through Him-the Son.
Kathi
Kathi!
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
especially Rev. 3:14 teaches us that Jesus was the beginning of all CREATION….
Almighty God is a Creator and He creates daily…. New Babies are born daily…..
Also God created through Jesus or by Jesus…. how? By His power, Gods Holy Spirit….Col 1:16 For BY HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
We have to remember that Jesus has never done anything by His own will, but His Fathers will, by His Father power… not His own power….Just like we cannot understand anything by our own power, but BY ALMIGHTY GODS HOLY SPIRIT….. WITHOUT GOD THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING. WHEN GOD TAKES AWAY HIS SPIRIT ALL GOES DOWN…..AND ALL WOULD DIE… even so one day we will die… but not because of our sins, but Adams sin… All in Adam will die and all in Christ will be made alive again….
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Peace Irene
Kathi
Quote The Isaiah passage seems to be the Father speaking about the Son of man which was not involved in creation…the Son of God was involved in creation. The Son of God was not yet the Messiah when He was with the Father in the beginning and all things were created by/through Him-the Son. Kathi
Christ was son of God before he came to be son of man and Messiah ,in both position he did the will of his father and God,and in both cases he is born or bring forward by his father and God,
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 12 2011,16:05) kathi Quote , that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;… Kathi
this is not true to scriptures all what is said in this about Christ
Pierre
Pierre,The “God of God” and “Light of Light” statement is true of Jesus. John said that Jesus is the “TRUE” (genuine) light. If He were not God He could not be called the “genuine” light.
We are the “children” of light (not you because you deny Jesus but real christians). But Jesus is the “genuine” light.
KJ
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 15 2011,01:55) Kathi Quote The Isaiah passage seems to be the Father speaking about the Son of man which was not involved in creation…the Son of God was involved in creation. The Son of God was not yet the Messiah when He was with the Father in the beginning and all things were created by/through Him-the Son. Kathi
Christ was son of God before he came to be son of man and Messiah ,in both position he did the will of his father and God,and in both cases he is born or bring forward by his father and God,
Pierre
Christ was NOT the Son of God before He was the Son of Man. He was the Son of Man from heaven (John 3:13) and born the Son of God in a stable.This proves that the word “son” in reference to Jesus refers to His offices and not His origin.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Nov. 15 2011,13:42) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 12 2011,16:05) kathi Quote , that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;… Kathi
this is not true to scriptures all what is said in this about Christ
Pierre
Pierre,The “God of God” and “Light of Light” statement is true of Jesus. John said that Jesus is the “TRUE” (genuine) light. If He were not God He could not be called the “genuine” light.
We are the “children” of light (not you because you deny Jesus but real christians). But Jesus is the “genuine” light.
KJ
JKQuote We are the “children” of light (not you because you deny Jesus but real christians). ha ha ha,
that s funnyCol 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Col 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
Col 1:22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
Col 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.you deny truth from his apostles and the holy spirit,and by doing so you deny Christ and his father
Jn 8:19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 14 2011,09:55) Kathi Quote The Isaiah passage seems to be the Father speaking about the Son of man which was not involved in creation…the Son of God was involved in creation. The Son of God was not yet the Messiah when He was with the Father in the beginning and all things were created by/through Him-the Son. Kathi
Christ was son of God before he came to be son of man and Messiah ,in both position he did the will of his father and God,and in both cases he is born or bring forward by his father and God,
Pierre
Pierre,
I agree with what you said and what you said doesn't discredit the common belief that He always was within the Father before He was brought forth.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2011,23:39)
No he wasn't ever referred to as the only 'created son.' It refers to Him as an only 'begotten son.' You are twisting the meanings to force it to fit your theology.
“God CREATED me as the first of His works”. “He is the firstborn of all CREATION”. “I am the beginning of the CREATION of God”. It is YOU who twists meanings, Kathi.Oh, and by the way, WHOSE creation is Jesus the beginning of? Even if you want to use “ruler” instead of “beginning”, it still amounts to Jesus himself telling us WHOSE creation he is the “ruler/beginning” OF.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2011,23:39)
You claim that the Son was the only thing the Father 'created directly', therefore…all other things were created indirectly by the Father.
Ah………..I see how the wording tripped you up. My fault. What I meant to say is that Jesus is the only creation of God that wasn't created THROUGH someone or something else. All other things were also directly created by God, but they all came FROM God THROUGH Jesus. (1 Cor 8:6)Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2011,23:39)
Rev 4:11 is addressing the Father as the creator which He was certainly involved in creation.
The Father wasn't “involved in creation”, Kathi. The Father created all things, just like 4:11 clearly states. (Not to mention Acts 4:24, Is 42:5, and Rev 3:14)It's funny that I would even have to search for scriptures about the creation that list both God and His Son, just so I can distinguish for you which ONE of them created. The numerous OT scriptures should be enough; but because of your nonsensical “Jehovah consists of both Father and Son” travesty, I have to work extra hard. So…………thanks for that!
Because that's exactly how I delve deeper into scriptures and learn more.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2011,23:39)
The passage is not excluding the Son as also being involved in the creation, it is just addressing the Father in this context.
Yes, actually it is excluding the Son. Because the Son is someone OTHER THAN than the “Lord and God” who “created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being”. Those 24 elders sure weren't speaking to a “compound unity”, were they?Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2011,23:39)
The Isaiah passage seems to be the Father speaking about the Son of man which was not involved in creation…
There is only ONE Jesus, Kathi. The Son of Man who said “I came down from heaven” is the Son of God who was in heaven before he came down from heaven.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 14 2011,18:02) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 14 2011,09:55) Kathi Quote The Isaiah passage seems to be the Father speaking about the Son of man which was not involved in creation…the Son of God was involved in creation. The Son of God was not yet the Messiah when He was with the Father in the beginning and all things were created by/through Him-the Son. Kathi
Christ was son of God before he came to be son of man and Messiah ,in both position he did the will of his father and God,and in both cases he is born or bring forward by his father and God,
Pierre
Pierre,
I agree with what you said and what you said doesn't discredit the common belief that He always was within the Father before He was brought forth.Kathi
Common with WHO? And if you agree with what Pierre said, then you know that there was only ONE Jesus who lived in heaven, then on earth, and then again in heaven. And if you agree with that, then the point you made about Is 42 is a non-point. And if that is the case, I would like you to take another stab at directly addressing the fact that the ONE who created was speaking about and to Jesus – therefore Jesus couldn't have been the ONE who created, or even a “part of Him”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
