Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by Keith.

Viewing 20 posts - 1,061 through 1,080 (of 25,960 total)

←1 2 3…535455…1,296 1,297 1,298 →

Author
Posts

August 31, 2008 at 1:24 pm#103514

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 31 2008,20:07)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2008,15:52)

well if Christians can't be the ones to decide who is a Christian and who isn't, then who can?

Thank God this isn't true!!

The Lord knows who's are his. Man cannot know the heart of another man.

Mandy

I don't mean knowing who are Christians in any ultimate judgmental sense, though of course there are times when we can know this as well. For instance, if someone professes to worship Satan and seeks to kidnap young children for blood sacrifices, I think its a pretty safe bet to say that such a person is not saved. The discussions surrounding Jesus' nature and the nature of God are not as clear, to be sure, but historically speaking, persons who denied the eternality of Christ and the Trinity were in fact not considered Christians, but rather heretics. I think this is still true today, though unfortuantely with the politically cortrect disease polluting the church and people thinking that the last taboo is to dare to say that someone is wrong, and seriously so, this fact, mixed with the rampant pluralistic worldview where there is no absolute truth, everything is relative ……. these things have all led to an environment where a person can believe almost anything and still call themselves a “Christian”. Don't believe the Bible is infallible and inspired? No problem. Don't believe in the virgin birth? No problem. Don't believe that Jesus is eternal? No problem. Don't believe that God is triune? No problem. Don't believe in any personal God at all? No problem. Still actively engaged in adultery, drunkenness, etc without repentance…? No problem. Everyone can be a “Christian”… doesn't matter what you believe or how you live!!!

However, Christians, as an group, should and do have the right to say what set of beliefs one must have in order to be a Christian. Of course there are arguments on both sides. Modalists, Arains, Mormons, JW's etc all may say that Constantine corrupted the early church, or they may think it somehow profound that the bible never uses the word “Trinity”, and such people may think that there has been no “true church” since the early Christians…. that is their right of course. My point is that speaking in a historical, classical sense, Christians have always and everywhere believed that Jesus is eternal and that God is triune in nature, period. Of course, this fact alone does not mean the beliefs these Christians have are true. Just because someone or some group of persons might believe something for a long time no more makes something true than if they believed it for a very short time. The length of time one believes something, or that a group of people believes something is no determiner of it's veracity. Of course, these things are true for those who deny that Jesus is eternal and the Trinity as well.

blessings,
Ken

August 31, 2008 at 2:52 pm#103517

Lightenup

Participant

In the beginning was the word. That does not say that the “word” was eternal, it just says that it was in the beginning. A word has an origin, first it must be a thought. Surely there must be something more than that for those of you who believe that the Son of God always existed especially if you believe those who don't believe that are “heretics”.

August 31, 2008 at 6:52 pm#103530

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
If you do choose to believe the bible then teachings such as about a triune god are anathema.
Such things are not written there so belief in both the bible and trinity are incompatible.

August 31, 2008 at 7:31 pm#103534

Oxy

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 01 2008,04:52)

That's an interesting thought LU and one I have considered myself. At the end of the day there are some mysteries of God that are unfathomable, so I tend to take Scripture for what it says, but always willing for the Lord to show me differently, which He has done on numerous occasions over the years. I know it may sound simplistic, but I take In the beginning” as just that until He shows me otherwise.

What I find more interesting about the Word, is that He is the Promise of God, spoken of repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, and the fulfillment of that Promise. The Word of God did not return to Him void!

August 31, 2008 at 7:44 pm#103535

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 01 2008,02:52)

Exactly LU…. trinitarians… those who affirm that there never was a time when Jesus was not….. look to other passages which indicate Christ's eternal nature. But, as we look at Jn 1:1, well 1:3 actually, (John 1:3 (NASB) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”) we see that Jesus cannot be a created being. If all things came into being through the agency of the Son, and nothing….. nothing came into being but by Him, then plainly Jesus cannot be a created being, for Jesus would have had to have created Himself since He is plainly said to have created all….. ALL….. things… not all OTHER things…. and since Jesus is Himself is a thing, so to speak, and since it is patently absurd for Jesus to have created Himself, for then He would have to “be” before He was, Jesus must therefore be eternal, or, if you like, uncreated. Pretty simple really.

blessings,
Ken

August 31, 2008 at 8:05 pm#103536

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,06:52)

Hi E,
If you do choose to believe the bible then teachings such as about a triune god are anathema.
Such things are not written there so belief in both the bible and trinity are incompatible.

Hji N, as soon as you show me a verse in the bible that specifically and explicitly says “If you do choose to believe the bible then teachings such as about a triune god are anathema. Such things are not written there so belief in both the bible and trinity are incompatible.” then I will believe you N.

The fact is, you believe and state your beliefs quite often without appeals to Scriptures, as you just did in this post. So you are being hypocritical in trying to make everyone else conform to a standard that you do not, yourself, use.

I believe that the Bible is the final and absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice. But none of us go around communicating by merely and only swapping bible verses or passages. We interpret. We restate. And so I believe that whatever the bible speaks to directly, and whatever we can know and learn by necessary inference is true. So while the bible does not say, specifically, that we ought not drop atomic bombs on innocent people, I can know, based on biblical principles, by necessary inference, that I ought not do so. And so when it comes to people trying to sound really profound by asking “do you know that the word `trinity' does not appear in the bible?”, as if that is some huge point against trinitarianism, I frankly just about burst out laughing. Just because a certain word does not appear in the Scriptures hardly means anything as far as refuting a belief that a given word has been chosen to represent. The word “bible” does not appear in the Scriptures either. What follows from this observation? That we should not have a bible? Hardly. Nowhere in the bible does it say that we will only have 66 books of inspired text. What follows from this? Nothing. But you don't see people who think that its some kind of big deal that the word “trinity” doesn't appear in the bible, also go on to base their beliefs on the fact that many other words do not appear in the bible, yet they go right on using those words to describe their beliefs, and speak as if their beliefs are in fact biblical. So, again, I am really tired of the hypocrisy in this area that so many engage in. If you want to think that just because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Scriptures is a big deal, then be consistent and stop using all other non-biblical words to describe your beliefs And if you can't do that, then stop complaining that others use words not specifically found in the Scriptures to summarize THEIR beliefs. In fact, if you want to be really consistent with this “use only words found in the bible” paradigm, then stop speaking and writing in English altogether, since biblical words are in fact Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

blessings,
Ken

August 31, 2008 at 8:28 pm#103537

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
You say
“and whatever we can know and learn by necessary inference is true”
But what you and I can infer will not be the same so how can inference be truth?

August 31, 2008 at 8:29 pm#103538

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
We interpret?
Surely scripture should interpret lest we add to it.

August 31, 2008 at 8:30 pm#103539

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
You say
“I believe that the Bible is the final and absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice.”
I agree.
So if trinity is not written or taught there it is false.

August 31, 2008 at 9:09 pm#103541

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (dirtyknections @ Aug. 31 2008,16:20)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2008,15:52)

Sorry brother…

But the Nicene Creed holds NO weight with true followers of Christ. To put it bluntly Constantine and the creators of the Nicene creed are the alpha of that which Jesus prophesied here..

Matthew 24:8-14
8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9″Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

1 Timothy 4:1-3
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-12
3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

So let me put what i am tryinf to say in a condensed form. Simply put the Scriptures foretold a great apostasy, or falling away from the true faith. The symbolic weeds of Jesus’ parable, that is, counterfeit Christians, would try to choke out the symbolic wheat, or true Christians, those anointed with God’s spirit. The parable reveals that the spread of false Christianity, promoted by God’s archenemy, the Devil, was about to begin, “while men were sleeping.” This took place after the death of Christ’s faithful apostles, during a period of spiritual drowsiness. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8) As foretold by the apostles, many counterfeit Christians wormed their way into the fold. (Acts 20:29, 30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:1-3) John was the last of the apostles to die. In about the year 98 C.E., he wrote that “the last hour,” the final part of the apostolic period, had already commenced.—1 John 2:18, 19.

With the alliance of religion and political power sealed by Roman emperor Constantine, the spiritual, doctrinal, and moral condition of Christendom declined. Many historians agree that “the triumph of the Church during the fourth century” was, from the Christian point of view, “a disaster.” ‘Christendom lost her high moral level’ and accepted many practices and philosophies from paganism, such as “the cult of Mary” and the adoration of the “saints,” as well as the concept of the Trinity.

I'm sorry too, I did not see Constantine's name listed anywhere in those verses. Rather, that is just YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures.

I would think that Christians could see that while Constantine was not perfect (and he who is without sin cast the first stone!!) his stopping the persecutions and killing of Christians was, on the whole, a pretty good deal for Christians. in all reality. Further, so many equate anything Constantine did or said as evil simply because of errors he made in other areas. But this is to commit the logical fallacy called “the Genetic Fallacy”, that is to deny a proposition's verity based simply on it's source. Adolph Hitler was by all accounts, one of the most evil persons to have ever lived, but if he said “2+2=4”, then this is not false simply because Hitler was responsible for the murder of untold Christians and Jews. So too, just because Constantine did or said something that was false or sinful, it hardly means that everything he did or said was false or wrong.

The Nicene creed does indeed hold weight with all true followers of Christ, for it was used by true Christians to define what true Christians in fact were, and, equally important, were not. Secondly on this point, the Nicene Creed carries weight because, and only because and insofar as it restates biblical teachings. In so far as anyone rejects the Nicene Creed, they reject the biblical principles upon which it was founded.

If you deny the Trinity, then I am not your brother. My brothers and sisters in Christ are those who adhere to the classical historic doctrines of Christianity, those that adhere to the Nicene Creed for instance. If you deny the Nicene Creed then historically, you are not a Christian, and therefore not my brother.

As far as a decline in the church post-Constantine, this is arbitrary. there has always been apostasy in the church, even during the time of Christ, in fact Christ's own persecution and crucifixion was caused by an apostasy in the church, the disciples all fleeing from Jesus when He was arrested was an apostasy, when many were said to leave Christ after he told them that no one could go to the Father but by Him (Jn. 6:66), that too was an apostasy. Prior to Constantine, the early church fathers combated apostasy…. apostasies like Arianism for instance…. and it was not Constantine that decided upon church doctrine, but rather it was leaders within the church itself that decided upon doctrine. Constantine acted as a judge, nothing more.

“The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine. In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the heresy of Donatism. After making a decision against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), to deal mostly with the heresy of Arianism.” (Wikipedia)

So was Constantine perfect? Of course n
ot. But then, neither are you. So should I reject everything you say because I know that you are a sinner? No more so than you ought to reject what I say, or what Constantine says, based on this fact alone. So while it is easy to demonize Constantine, and blame him for all the faults in the church, that's superficial reasoning and the easy way out. Any problems in the church are the church's fault, and no one single person is to blame for all of their/our issues. If some in “Christendom lost (their) high moral level”, then this is simply saying what has always been true, Christians are not perfect, and not everyone, not all the time, is doing their level best to be a Christian. This does not make it right, that is not the point. The point is that blaming low levels of morality among Christians as being caused by what is happening in the government, is nothing but blame shifting. Of course some jumped on the band wagon and became Christians simply because it might have been politically expedient to do so. These people then might not have been as moral as true Christians should have been. But to say that all of Christendom was a sham post-Constantine simply because some failed to live up to the standards of biblical conduct expected of Christians is just fallacious reasoning, because many Christians, it appears from the historical records such as the early church fathers, did in fact live highly ethical lives.

And even if we were to grant that Constantine ruined the church, this would not, in and of itself, do anything to prove the doctrine of the Trinity or the eternality of the Son as being false.

blessings,
Ken

August 31, 2008 at 9:23 pm#103543

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,

“And even if we were to grant that Constantine ruined the church, this would not, in and of itself, do anything to prove the doctrine of the Trinity or the eternality of the Son as being false.”

No the bible does that.

August 31, 2008 at 9:35 pm#103544

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,08:30)

Hi E,
You say
“I believe that the Bible is the final and absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice.”
I agree.
So if trinity is not written or taught there it is false.

The point is that it IS taught in the Bible, (though what difference you are trying to distinguish between what is “written” and what is “taught” I am not sure, but plainly, simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Scriptures, this fact in and itself means exactly nothing insofar as the truthfulness (or falsity) of the doctrine is concerned…) but, whether you want to believe it or not, whether you choose to accept it or not, its still true. You are just like the fool (not that you are necessarily a fool per se) who says there is no God. Just because a fool says “God does not exist”, God is not in the least bothered by such statements, does not cease to exist, and God goes on existing just fine regardless of such statements. And Christians are not or at least should not be in the least bothered and should not therefore start to doubt their belief in God simply because an atheist wants to doubt the existence of God. So too with the doctrine of the Trinity. Your doubting it does change the fact that it is true.

But you are right in that if the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the bible, it ought not be believed. It just so happens that it is taught, and getting me to doubt the godly men and women of the church who have taught and proven from the Scriptures that Jesus is deity, one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is frankly not something I have seen anyone on the internet capable of doing, certainly no one here at heaven net, no offense intended. In fact, I know that you feel the same way, that no one you know or have ever met on the internet is capable of changing your mind on this issue. You and I are both equally set on our beliefs. We both think that we are the ones with the biblical support. We both think that if only the other was “really” receptive to the truth, the truth of the Scriptures and the truth of reason, and not blinded by Satan, demons, their own pride, cultural baggage, etc etc etc then they would then come to see our position as being true. Its a tough position to be in, true. Changing paradigms, getting others to change their central paradigm beliefs or changing one's own central paradigm beliefs is a very difficult feat to be sure, and one that rarely happens as a result of online conversations. “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's proof often is not very compelling to another, but such is the way of things and little can be done to help it. Its like the Creationist and the Evolutionist who both look at the same evidence… say the Grand Canyon for instance…. one sees the result of millions upon millions of years of erosion, the other sees evidence for a catastrophic global flood, so too with this issue. We both look at the same evidence (the Scriptures), but come away with very different views as to what the evidence means. Clearly one of us is wrong, or perhaps both of us are wrong, but we can't both be right.

But, at any rate, I will go on believing the Trinity is true unless, as Martin Luther said, I can be persuaded by Scripture and reason that it is not so. I have read an awful lot on this forum, from you, from t8, and from others, and nothing I have read so far comes even comes close to persuading me that the doctrine of the Trinity, or the eternality of the Son is false.

blessings,
Ken

August 31, 2008 at 9:36 pm#103545

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
For dummies like me and for little kids what is taught is truth.
Trinity is never taught.

August 31, 2008 at 9:49 pm#103547

epistemaniac

Participant

Wrong, what is taught can be error. Or perhaps you meant to say “what is taught IN THE SCRIPTURE is what is true”…?

However, for smart people and for old people what is taught is true, as long as its biblical, scriptural, and the trinity is in fact taught. It doesn't matter if someone is a “dummy”, doesn't matter if they are young, old, smart, or anything in between, the Trinity is true. Now, wasn't that fun?

blessings,
Ken

August 31, 2008 at 9:53 pm#103548

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
I agree.
What is written is truth.[Jn17.17]
Men cannot define truth according to their own derivations and inferences.

It is error to teach trinity as it is not written.

August 31, 2008 at 9:59 pm#103550

dirtyknections

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2008,09:09)

Quote (dirtyknections @ Aug. 31 2008,16:20)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2008,15:52)

Sorry brother…

But the Nicene Creed holds NO weight with true followers of Christ. To put it bluntly Constantine and the creators of the Nicene creed are the alpha of that which Jesus prophesied here..

Matthew 24:8-14
8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

I'm sorry too, I did not see Constantine's name listed anywhere in those verses. Rather, that is just YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures.

“The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine. In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the heresy of Donatism. After making a decision against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. More significantly, in 325 h
e summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), to deal mostly with the heresy of Arianism.” (Wikipedia)

So was Constantine perfect? Of course not. But then, neither are you. So should I reject everything you say because I know that you are a sinner? No more so than you ought to reject what I say, or what Constantine says, based on this fact alone. So while it is easy to demonize Constantine, and blame him for all the faults in the church, that's superficial reasoning and the easy way out. Any problems in the church are the church's fault, and no one single person is to blame for all of their/our issues. If some in “Christendom lost (their) high moral level”, then this is simply saying what has always been true, Christians are not perfect, and not everyone, not all the time, is doing their level best to be a Christian. This does not make it right, that is not the point. The point is that blaming low levels of morality among Christians as being caused by what is happening in the government, is nothing but blame shifting. Of course some jumped on the band wagon and became Christians simply because it might have been politically expedient to do so. These people then might not have been as moral as true Christians should have been. But to say that all of Christendom was a sham post-Constantine simply because some failed to live up to the standards of biblical conduct expected of Christians is just fallacious reasoning, because many Christians, it appears from the historical records such as the early church fathers, did in fact live highly ethical lives.

And even if we were to grant that Constantine ruined the church, this would not, in and of itself, do anything to prove the doctrine of the Trinity or the eternality of the Son as being false.

blessings,
Ken

Sorry brother,

But you need a history lesson…

Constantine WAS NOT a “true” Christian…true Christians follow Christ.. they don't try to appease Pagans by assimilating Pagan and Christian beliefs…which is exactly what constantine did. Constantine was more interested in Political expansion than unifying Christianity…Costantine and his friends are also are responsible for the abomination that is the “clergy-laity” class system. The nicene creed did nothing more than lay the foundation for the “great apostasy” that Christ foretold.

What immediately followed the development of the Nicene Creed? Death, Division, and Mayhem. Why? Because Christ said that immediately following the death of the apostles, Christianity would be invaded by wolves. And that “man of lawlessness” would infiltrate the body of christ Kill and Destroy…

Well lets examine…what followed the end of the 1st century congregation and the death of the last apostle? THE NICENE CREED

What Followed the NICENE CREED? Death and Destruction…and to top it off the offspring of Constantine tried to stop the masses from having access to the bible!!! AND THIS IS WHAT YOU BASE YOUR FAITH ON

True Christianity, can not be defined by the “creeds” and “traditions” of men…it can only be defined by the bible…the simple fact that YOU let a meeting of semi-pagan pharisaic apostasizers define your faith, lets me know that are misled…

Instead of you letting the bible determine whether I am your brother, you let the views of MEN alienate fellow members in the body of Christ. Sad, Sad, Sad..

But as Jesus said, “Those that do the will of my Father are my brother”

And for the record “Historical Christianity” is responsible for the murder of MILLIONS i.e. the Inquisition…If it wasn't for “true christians” you would not even HAVE a bible to read. Remember Historical Christianity did not think that YOU and I should have access to the bible. Thank GOD for “non-brothers” like Martin Luther and William Tyndale.

:laugh:

August 31, 2008 at 10:09 pm#103555

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,00:26)

If Jesus was saying that he preexisted in the “I am” statement, he sure chose a strange time to introduce that concept. There was no explaination given after that statement either. All is pretty vague, if you ask me.

What is strange about the timing and the place?

The question he was asked was, “Are you older than Abraham”?

It was very relevant because the question was related. I don't see the timing as strange at all.

He was also asked are you the messiah and other questions and he answered. We wouldn't expect him to say no because of the timing or the place would we?

He said he was the truth and he answered questions truthfully.

August 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm#103557

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
You say
” “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder, “

That statement alone speaks volumes

August 31, 2008 at 10:17 pm#103558

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,00:26)

The use of “I am” in the “…before Abraham I am….” context appears to be a special construction of words. It is unlikely that Jesus would be claiming to be God or even a preexistent thing at this time in the NT story. It doesn't ring true with the tenor of the NT, imo. It certainly does not ring true with the tenor of the OT at all, imo.

We know that God is invisible and yet certain people in the OT claim to have seen God.

But Yeshua is the image of the invisible God and because of that, when people see God, they are really seeing the image of God or a representative of God.

e.g., I posted a death experience from a New Zealander in the testimony section. I believe his experience was real. When he died he saw a tunnel and he saw a glorious light at the end. Within the light he saw a being who looked like a man in that he had white hair and a face shining like the sun.

So he concluded that he saw God, when in actual fact he was the image of the invisible God.

There are quite a few testimonies in the Old Testament where men were said they saw God.

And in the NT there are quite a number of scriptures that say things like God created all things through him and that Jesus is the offspring of David, but also the root.

In addition to that, he is the firstborn of all creation.

Yes it is true that not all who are called firstborn are the first because the title can be lost and given to another. But that is the exception, not the rule.

Literally speaking the firstborn is the one who was born first. And it says firstborn of all creation, not just among men.

Not even Adam was the firstborn of all creation. He was the firstborn man.

So I don't see it as strange at all, and I don’t think you need to stretch things in the OT and the NT to see it. All you need to do is just read what it says in the OT and the NT. Special additions are not needed for many of these scriptures whereas claiming that Jesus came into existence 2000 or so years ago, requires quite a bit of assumption and even tampering.

August 31, 2008 at 10:19 pm#103559

dirtyknections

Participant

For E..Since obviously you haven't REALLY studied the history of your god Costantine..here is a brief synopsis…(sources cited)

During Constantine’s rule Christianity not only began to play a role in Roman governmental activities, but Christian symbols made there way onto Roman coinage as well. Constantine was responsible for the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire, but his motives were not religious. Constantine’s political genius gave him the insight to realize the he could either begin tolerating the Christians, or let them slowly destroy his empire. Constantine chose to tolerate the Christian, but was aware it would be a very difficult task. Diocletian, emperor of the Western Roman Empire before Maxentius did all he could to rid his empire of the Christians, but was unsuccessful in doing so. Constantine was aware that persecuting the Christians would only encourage their martyrdom and would ultimately prove be an unsuccessful effort (Chadwick 127-29). In the centuries leading up to Constantine’s reign Christians were humiliated, tortured and killed if they refused to renounce their faith. Many gave up their Christian beliefs, but those who did not became martyrs. Those people who refused to renounce their faith and were killed and as a result became great inspirations to those living Christians in the empire. “The impact of martyrdom was immense and even, according to Tertulian, acted as a seed-bed for Christianity (Elliot 351).”

Constantine not only had to prove himself a more than efficient politician, but he had to sell himself to both religious groups. This would take a great deal of personal effort from Constantine. He would have to present himself as a supporter of the pagans, while supporting the Christians as well. What made this so difficult for Constantine was in Rome it wasn’t strange for an individual to observe several pagan traditions, Constantine himself followed several. This was completely unacceptable to Christians; in their eyes the worship of other gods was unacceptable. Constantine’s pro-Christian message was accepted without a great deal of public outcry because of its similarities to solar monotheism, the most popular form of paganism in the Roman Empire at this time. Like solar monotheism, the sun was a very important religious symbol to Christians. Many believed that Christians worshipped the sun, because just as solar monotheists they met on Sundays and prayed facing the East. Also in the Old Testament, Jesus was known as the “sun of righteousness.” Despite the similarities between Christianity and solar monotheism, this adoption of Christianity by Constantine still proved to be a difficult task.

First, Christ was not a god of war. The Old Testament frequently involved God in the slaughter of his enemies, but the New Testament did not. Constantine would have to create a totally new conception of Christianity if he was to sustain the link between the Christian God and victory in war. Second, it was crucial for Constantine’s political survival that he did not break with the pagan cults that still claimed the allegiance of most of his subjects, yet Christianity emphatically rejected paganism (Freeman 157).

As Dr. Charles Freeman illustrates in this quote, Constantine had to be very careful not to offend the pagans or the Christians. A falling out with either the pagans or the Christians could prove to be disastrous for Constantine. This division would only add to the long list of differences between the western and eastern empire. The eastern empire was extremely Christianized while the western was predominately pagan. Trouble between these two very different sections of Rome was a genuine threat. A quarrel over religion could tear the Roman Empire apart (Rodgers 235).

Soon Constantine would find out that the Christians were much more volatile than the pagans. In order to keep the Christians happy he began granting members of the clergy special favors, “in particular exemption from the heavy burden of holding civic office and taxation (Freeman 162).” This is an essential step in Constantine’s attempt to tie the Christians into Roman society. Not only was he attempting to buy the trust of Christians after a decade of persecution, but he had to do so without upsetting the non-Christian members of his empire. This was a very dangerous move, no pagan priests had ever been given special attention in the Roman Empire, and for Constantine to favor Christian clergy in this manner was almost unheard of. Amazingly there was almost no backlash from the non-Christian population of Rome. However, Constantine did not know what he was getting himself into. “He appears to have been genuinely surprised at the number and diversity of communities calling themselves Christian, and soon after his victory he had to face the dilemma of whether to give patronage to all of these or to privilege some communities more than others (Freeman 165)” Constantine devoted much more time to facilitating their actions within his empire. He must have been terrified when he realized that he was dealing with another group of people that were destroying themselves from the inside out. There was just as much dissension amongst the Christian ranks as there was amongst Roman Officials. Desperate to end the tension between those different Christian groups Constantine called a council of bishops. The bishops met at the imperial palace at Nicaea in Asia Minor, Constantine’s goal was to create a Christian doctrine that all Christians could agree on, and could be backed by the state (Chadwick 130).

Constantine’s conversion of Rome marks a turning-point in the history of the Christian Church and of Europe. “It meant more than the end of persecution. The sovereign autocrat was inevitably and immediately involved in the development of the church, and conversely the Church became more and more implicated in high political decisions (Chadwick 125).” Constantine’s toleration of Christianity was most definitely a political maneuver. The most impressive accomplishment of Constantine’s reign was his ability to keep the Roman Empire intact. The fact that Christianity was now integrated into the most powerful empire in the world and would soon become the most powerful religion in the world was a bi-product of Constantine’s policy to keep the Roman Empire afloat. Constantine may have been the greatest promoter of Christianity of all time, but his motives behind the Edict of Milan, the Council of Nicaea and every other policy favoring Christianity were purely political.

Works Cited
Bailkey, Nels M. and Richard Lim. Readings in Ancient History: Thought and
Experience from Gilgamesh to St. Augustine. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2002.
Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. London: Pelican Books, 1967.
Elliot, Thomas G. The Language of Constantine’s Propaganda. Transactions of the
American Philological Association (1974), Vol. 120. (1990), pp. 349-353.
Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of
Reason. New York: Vintage Books, 2002.
Rodgers, Barbara Saylor. The Metamorphosis of Constantine. The Classical Quarterly,
New Series, Vol. 39, No.1. (1989), pp. 233-246.
Wright, David H. The True Face of Constantine the Great. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol.
41, Studies on Art and Archaelogy in Honor of Ernst Kitzingers on His Seventy-
Fifth Birthday. (1987), pp. 493-507.

Hope you learned something

Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 1,061 through 1,080 (of 25,960 total)

←1 2 3…535455…1,296 1,297 1,298 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account