Home Questions & Answers Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth? Page 55

Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

, , Questions & Answers, , , , , 25,959
Baby Jesus

It seems that most who call themselves Christian belong to one of two camps. Jesus is either God or a mere created man. This debate has been raging since the days of Athanasius of Alexandria and Arius.

What the does the Bible say? Well it is quite clear on who Jesus is and his origin. Let’s take a look at what is written.

Scripture says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and when Jesus returns, his name is called ‘The Word of God’.  (John 1 & Revelation 19:13)

It says that God created all things through THE WORD and nothing was created without him. (John 1:3)

It says that the universe was created through THE SON and he is before all things. (Colossians 1:15-17)

It says that all things were created through JESUS CHRIST. (Hebrews 2:9)

This is what the Bible says about Jesus Christ, the son of the living God, the one named: ‘The Word of God’ who was with God in the beginning.

He emptied himself, took upon himself our nature, was obedient to his God and our God, died for our sins as it is written, and is now in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos.

Jesus is not God in the flesh, rather the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. He was with God in the beginning. He was the first to be with God.

Viewing 20 posts - 1,081 through 1,100 (of 25,960 total)
123…545556…1,2961,2971,298
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 31, 2008 at 10:36 pm#103562
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2008,15:44)

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

    LU


    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


    Hello Epistemaniac and Oxy,
    I agree with you that the Son of God was not a created being. But at the same time, I believe that the Son of God did have a beginning.

    Please allow me your consideration here. I understand that something created to be that which is the first of its kind. After God created all the “firsts” of their kind during the first six days, His creative works were complete. Now, we know that mankind was created and the first ones of that kind were Adam and Eve. Their firstborn was Cain, he came out of the womb of Eve. He was not created but reproduced and shared in the nature of the created man. He is a part of creation in that the first of his kind was created.

    Now, think on this. If someone that always existed and was never created had a son born from the womb, then that son is not a part of a created order as a created being since the first of his kind always existed. He would be the firstborn, a reproduction of that which always existed. He would have the same nature as the one he came from. He would be God from God as the begotten son of God or firstborn of God. Just as Cain would be man from man, the begotten son of Adam and Eve. Cain came from a created kind, the Son of God came from an always existent kind. He was begotten, not “made” as in created.

    You are a begotten son, you were not created although you are part of creation. You were born. Adam and Eve weren't born, they were created. See the difference. You are a begotten son of man, man of man, begotten, not made, as in “created”. You are one substance with your father.

    As the Nicene Creed states “the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his 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.

    The Nicene Creed
    I 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 his 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 Ghost 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 I believe in the Holy Ghost, 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 spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

    AMEN.”

    Do you see how the Son of God could have a beginning and not have been considered “created”? Also it states in this creed that He is Light of Light. I believe that this very likely is pointing to the light referred to on day one of creation. Day one was definetly a beginning and nothing had come into being in heaven or on earth. He certainly is the “Word of God”, Oxy. And I believe that He was what the first spoken word of God represented when God said “let there be light.” He not only was what the first word represented but also is the representative of the Word of God as we see in Revelations and elsewhere.

    Just think on these things guys. As you both know, the “Firstborn of all creation” is a title of the Son of God. I asked God once to show me whether it was literal or not. That is when I met the literal Son of God.

    You can find this testimony in a fuller form here:
    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….9;st=30

    God bless,
    LU

    August 31, 2008 at 10:41 pm#103563
    NickHassan
    Participant

    HI LU,
    DO you agree with the catholic creed that The Spirit of God is worshipped apart from the Father?
    Is this written?

    August 31, 2008 at 10:43 pm#103564
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (dirtyknections @ Sep. 01 2008,09:59)

    Quote
    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:


    LOL…. if you want to insist on thinking that you are my brother… have at it…

    secondly, you are not God, you cannot decide who is a true Christian and who is not, isn't that what people have been telling me here…?

    thirdly, “history” lessons aside, and perhaps you have need of some yourself…. there are differing opinions regarding Constantine's level of Christian commitment and his reasons behind that commitment: “During his life and those of his sons, Constantine's was presented as a paragon of virtue. Even pagans like Praxagoras of Athens and Libanius showered him with praise. When the last of his sons died in 361, his nephew Julian the Apostate wrote the satire Symposium, or the Saturnalia. The work stigmatized Constantine as inferior to the great pagan emperors, given over to luxury and greed.[224] Following Julian, Eunapius of Sardis began the tradition that blamed Constantine for weakening the Empire through his indulgence to the Christians. In medieval times, when the Roman Catholic Church was dominant, Catholic historians presented Constantine as an ideal ruler, the standard against which any king or emperor could be measured. The Renaissance rediscovery of anti-Constantinian sources prompted a re-evaluation of Constantine's career. The German humanist Johann Löwenklau, discoverer of Zosimus' writings, published a Latin translation thereof in 1576. He included a preface that argued for Zosimus' picture of Constantine was superior to that offered by Eusebius and the church historians, and damned Constantine as a tyrant.[227] Cardinal Caesar Baronius, a man of the Counter-Reformation, criticized Zosimus, favoring Eusebius' account of the Constantinian era. Baronius' Life of Constantine (1588) presents Constantine as the model of a Christian prince. Edward Gibbon, aiming to unite the two extremes of Constantinian scholarship, offered a portrait of Constantine built on the contrasted narratives of Eusebius and Zosimus.

    Modern interpretations of Constantine's rule begin with Jacob Burckhardt's The Age of Constantine the Great (1853). Burckhardt's Constantine is a scheming secularist, a politician who manipulates all parties in a quest to secure his own power.[230] Henri Grégoire, writing in the 1930s, followed Burckhardt's evaluation of Constantine. For Grégoire, Constantine only developed an interest in Christianity after witnessing its political usefulness. Grégoire became a strong of the authenticity of Eusebius' writings, and postulated a pseudo-Eusebius to assume responsibility for the vision and conversion narratives of Eusebius' Vita Constantini. Otto Seeck, in Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (1920–23), and André Piganiol, in L'empereur Constantin (1932), wrote against this historiographic tradition. Seeck presented Constantine as a sincere war hero, whose ambiguities were the product of his own simple inconsistency. Piganiol's Constantine is a philosophical monotheist, a child of his era's religious syncretism. Related histories by A.H.M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (1949)) and Ramsay MacMullen (Constantine (1969)) gave portraits of a less visionary, and more impulsive, Constantine.

    These later accounts were more willing to present Constantine as a genuine convert to Christianity. Beginning with Norman H. Baynes' Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1929) and reinforced by Andreas Alföldi's The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (1948), a historiographic tradition developed which presented Constantine as a committed Christian. T.D. Barnes' seminal Constantine and Eusebius (1981), represents the culmination of this trend. Barnes' Constantine experienced a radical conversion, which drove him on a personal crusade to convert his empire. The trend reaches its zenith in T.G. Elliott's The Christianity of Constantine the Great (1996). Elliott portrays Constantine as a committed Christian from early childhood.” (Wikipedia)

    What immediately followed the Nicene Creed….? Death, Division and Mayhem….? LOL You have got to be kidding. All these things preceded the Nicene Creed as well. Besides, the fact that these things followed the Nicene Creed, even granting for the moment the ridiculous notion that they did not exist prior to it, it does not follow that the Nicene Creed was, itself, the cause of Death (which has been around since the Fall of man), Division (which has been around since the Fall of man), and Mayhem (which, you guessed it, has been around since even before the fall of man, eg the Fall of Lucifer, which is also an example of “Division” as well). If I remember correctly, the Corinthian church had quite a problem with divisions as well didn't they…? Ah well… there are so many examples to disprove your “Nicene Creed was the cause of Death, Division and Mayhem” theory that is would be endless examples to the contrary. If you can't see the obvious fallacious nature of this reasoning, sadly, perhaps no examples to the contrary would be helpful? If you think they would be helpful, however, I wou
    ld be more than glad to give you some examples of “Death, Division, and Mayhem” all existing prior to the writing of the Nicene Creed, if you like. Just give me the word that you actually need them, and I will gladly oblige.

    Next, you make another illogical leap by reering to the “offsping of Constantine”. What and who are they supposed to be!! LOL…. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church had the abhorrent practice of chaining the bibles to their pulpits has nothing whatsoever to do with COnstantine. However, I am willing to be taught here. Please, give me one historical example of Constantine chaing bibles to pulpits, and will gladly aquiese and say that the RCC's practice of doing so can be, if you will pardon the pun, tied directly to Constantine. This, I am confident, you will not be able to do, especially since they did not have bibles as we know them or even as the medieval Roman Church knew them. “Scrolls continued to be used during the Early Church era until the early Middle Ages era.” (Wikipedia) Hows that for a little history lesson?

    Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. However, where you are mistaken is to say that Creeds etc MUST be contrary to the Scriptures. You are simply allowing yourself to be blinded by the traditions of men who say that tradition and scripture MUST be contrary to one another. Sad really.

    “Historical Christianity” is not responsible for any murders. However, certain people calling themselves “Christians” while carrying out heinous deeds in the name of God, Inquisition…. true, and the Crusades are another example of this practice, no more makes them “Christians” then someone standing inside a garage makes someone a car.

    Lastly, thanks for bringing up the very important saints of the church Martin Luther and William Tyndale, both of whom I am very happy to call “brothers”, this is because they were both Trinitarians. :) So thanks again for bringing up these great men of God. The fact that you believe they were wrong on this issue ought to cause you to reexamine your own beliefs. The fact that you likely will not, lets me know you are misled, and that truly is sad sad sad….

    blessings,
    Ken

    August 31, 2008 at 10:51 pm#103565
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    You say
    “Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. “

    Good call.
    So no derivations or inferences?

    August 31, 2008 at 10:56 pm#103567
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,10:14)
    Hi E,
    You say
    ” “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder, “

    That statement alone speaks volumes


    Of course it does. It speaks volumes concerning your failure to believe the proof of the Scriptures concerning the truth of the Trinity. However, since you will reject the proof I offer, proof is in the eye of the beholder, eg, you will not accept as proof that which I accept. Perhaps you are too busy to read entire posts… if so, you should not bother to respond at all, because I made it clear that I do not agree with subjectivism, the idea that truth is pluralistic or relative. Or to say it another way,that simply because people are not persuaded by the proof offered, this does not change the fact that truth is one and that people who argue mutually exclusive propositions cannot possibly both be right. I believe the Scriptures and God-given reason are conveyors of truth. I believe that since God is a God of order and not a God of confusion, logic follows from an ordered universe, such that things like the law of non-contradiction entail. So my saying that “proof is in the eye of the beholder” was not a belief of mine in the sense that there is no absolute truth, it was merely a statement stating the way things are, that people see evidence (ie the Scriptures) and interpret the evidence (Scriptures) differently. The fact that Trinitarians base their beliefs on the Scriptures is terribly troubling to non-Trinitarians who seem to think that they are the only 'truly biblical' “Christians” around. The fact is, we both appeal to the Scriptures for our beliefs, that was my larger point and if you had only carefully read the post you … or if you have a modicum of an elementary reading level which I know you do, which tells me that you really have no excuse for this lapse unless you were simply being lazy and/or not careful…. you would have known this…. at any rate we both cannot be right, of course, but like it or not, I go to the Scriptures as my final arbiter of truth, EVEN if we disagree.

    blessings,
    Ken

    August 31, 2008 at 10:57 pm#103568
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2008,18:41)
    HI LU,
    DO you agree with the catholic creed that The Spirit of God is worshipped apart from the Father?
    Is this written?


    Hi Nick,
    I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds forth from the Father and the Son. Not as a begotten being though.
    LU

    August 31, 2008 at 10:58 pm#103570
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi LU,
    Proceeds.
    So not to be worshipped as separate.

    August 31, 2008 at 11:02 pm#103571
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,10:51)
    Hi E,
    You say
    “Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. “

    Good call.
    So no derivations or inferences?


    perhaps, as you seem incapable of writing out well thought detailed refutations of others beliefs and/or defenses of your beliefs, you are likewise incapable of reading the same? Good and necessary inference on the Scriptures is not only possible, but mandatory. Everyone does it, even you N. Otherwise, I ask you to provide me the Scriptural proof that there will only be 66 books in the bible. I'll be waiting. In the meantime, I am quite happy to believe that God gave us our brains to actually put to use, and that logical inference is simply loving the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.

    blessings,
    ken

    August 31, 2008 at 11:04 pm#103572
    Lightenup
    Participant

    That is correct Nick. The Holy Spirit is the inner Spirit of the Father given to His Son and from His Son to all believers. Not a seperate being.

    Did I have you worried?
    LU

    August 31, 2008 at 11:05 pm#103573
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi LU,
    No you quoted the nicene creed as if it was sacrosanct.
    It is flawed IMO

    August 31, 2008 at 11:09 pm#103574
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2008,19:05)
    Hi LU,
    No you quoted the nicene creed as if it was sacrosanct.
    It is flawed IMO


    Nick,
    What part of it is flawed in your opinion. Maybe it can be understood as the Son of God actually having a beginning as I pointed out. It doesn't mention anything about three in one, co-eternal,or co-equal.

    LU

    August 31, 2008 at 11:15 pm#103575
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi LU,
    I brought up the thread

    September 1, 2008 at 12:06 am#103581
    dirtyknections
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2008,10:43)

    Quote (dirtyknections @ Sep. 01 2008,09:59)

    Quote
    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:


    LOL…. if you want to insist on thinking that you are my brother… have at it…

    secondly, you are not God, you cannot decide who is a true Christian and who is not, isn't that what people have been telling me here…?

    thirdly, “history” lessons aside, and perhaps you have need of some yourself…. there are differing opinions regarding Constantine's level of Christian commitment and his reasons behind that commitment: “During his life and those of his sons, Constantine's was presented as a paragon of virtue. Even pagans like Praxagoras of Athens and Libanius showered him with praise. When the last of his sons died in 361, his nephew Julian the Apostate wrote the satire Symposium, or the Saturnalia. The work stigmatized Constantine as inferior to the great pagan emperors, given over to luxury and greed.[224] Following Julian, Eunapius of Sardis began the tradition that blamed Constantine for weakening the Empire through his indulgence to the Christians. In medieval times, when the Roman Catholic Church was dominant, Catholic historians presented Constantine as an ideal ruler, the standard against which any king or emperor could be measured. The Renaissance rediscovery of anti-Constantinian sources prompted a re-evaluation of Constantine's career. The German humanist Johann Löwenklau, discoverer of Zosimus' writings, published a Latin translation thereof in 1576. He included a preface that argued for Zosimus' picture of Constantine was superior to that offered by Eusebius and the church historians, and damned Constantine as a tyrant.[227] Cardinal Caesar Baronius, a man of the Counter-Reformation, criticized Zosimus, favoring Eusebius' account of the Constantinian era. Baronius' Life of Constantine (1588) presents Constantine as the model of a Christian prince. Edward Gibbon, aiming to unite the two extremes of Constantinian scholarship, offered a portrait of Constantine built on the contrasted narratives of Eusebius and Zosimus.

    Modern interpretations of Constantine's rule begin with Jacob Burckhardt's The Age of Constantine the Great (1853). Burckhardt's Constantine is a scheming secularist, a politician who manipulates all parties in a quest to secure his own power.[230] Henri Grégoire, writing in the 1930s, followed Burckhardt's evaluation of Constantine. For Grégoire, Constantine only developed an interest in Christianity after witnessing its political usefulness. Grégoire became a strong of the authenticity of Eusebius' writings, and postulated a pseudo-Eusebius to assume responsibility for the vision and conversion narratives of Eusebius' Vita Constantini. Otto Seeck, in Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (1920–23), and André Piganiol, in L'empereur Constantin (1932), wrote against this historiographic tradition. Seeck presented Constantine as a sincere war hero, whose ambiguities were the product of his own simple inconsistency. Piganiol's Constantine is a philosophical monotheist, a child of his era's religious syncretism. Related histories by A.H.M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (1949)) and Ramsay MacMullen (Constantine (1969)) gave portraits of a less visionary, and more impulsive, Constantine.

    These later accounts were more willing to present Constantine as a genuine convert to Christianity. Beginning with Norman H. Baynes' Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1929) and reinforced by Andreas Alföldi's The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (1948), a historiographic tradition developed which presented Constantine as a committed Christian. T.D. Barnes' seminal Constantine and Eusebius (1981), represents the culmination of this trend. Barnes' Constantine experienced a radical conversion, which drove him on a personal crusade to convert his empire. The trend reaches its zenith in T.G. Elliott's The Christianity of Constantine the Great (1996). Elliott portrays Constantine as a committed Christian from early childhood.” (Wikipedia)

    What immediately followed the Nicene Creed….? Death, Division and Mayhem….? LOL You have got to be kidding. All these things preceded the Nicene Creed as well. Besides, the fact that these things followed the Nicene Creed, even granting for the moment the ridiculous notion that they did not exist prior to it, it does not follow that the Nicene Creed was, itself, the cause of Death (which has been around since the Fall of man), Division (which has been around since the Fall of man), and Mayhem (which, you guessed it, has been around since even before the fall of man, eg the Fall of Lucifer, which is also an example of “Division” as well). If I remember correctly, the Corinthian church had quite a problem with divisions as well didn't they…? Ah well… there are so many examples to disprove your “Nicene Creed was the cause of Death, Division and Mayhem” theory that is would be endless examples
    to the contrary. If you can't see the obvious fallacious nature of this reasoning, sadly, perhaps no examples to the contrary would be helpful? If you think they would be helpful, however, I would be more than glad to give you some examples of “Death, Division, and Mayhem” all existing prior to the writing of the Nicene Creed, if you like. Just give me the word that you actually need them, and I will gladly oblige.

    Next, you make another illogical leap by reering to the “offsping of Constantine”. What and who are they supposed to be!! LOL…. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church had the abhorrent practice of chaining the bibles to their pulpits has nothing whatsoever to do with COnstantine. However, I am willing to be taught here. Please, give me one historical example of Constantine chaing bibles to pulpits, and will gladly aquiese and say that the RCC's practice of doing so can be, if you will pardon the pun, tied directly to Constantine. This, I am confident, you will not be able to do, especially since they did not have bibles as we know them or even as the medieval Roman Church knew them. “Scrolls continued to be used during the Early Church era until the early Middle Ages era.” (Wikipedia) Hows that for a little history lesson?

    Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. However, where you are mistaken is to say that Creeds etc MUST be contrary to the Scriptures. You are simply allowing yourself to be blinded by the traditions of men who say that tradition and scripture MUST be contrary to one another. Sad really.

    “Historical Christianity” is not responsible for any murders. However, certain people calling themselves “Christians” while carrying out heinous deeds in the name of God, Inquisition…. true, and the Crusades are another example of this practice, no more makes them “Christians” then someone standing inside a garage makes someone a car.

    Lastly, thanks for bringing up the very important saints of the church Martin Luther and William Tyndale, both of whom I am very happy to call “brothers”, this is because they were both Trinitarians. :) So thanks again for bringing up these great men of God. The fact that you believe they were wrong on this issue ought to cause you to reexamine your own beliefs. The fact that you likely will not, lets me know you are misled, and that truly is sad sad sad….

    blessings,
    Ken


    You really should pick up a book :D

    September 1, 2008 at 1:56 am#103591
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    episteimaniac………….Your History of Constantine is quite different then what i have read, Have you ever read the book < (When Jesus Became God) Its very Historic and shown all the accounts of things going on during the Nicene Council. It is acclaimed as very accurate from a historical point of view. And to think the Catholic and Protestant Churches were not the cause of Millions of deaths is pure denial of historical truth, even there modern Churches have admitted this guilt of there past, and even in our recent life time the killings have continued, take the Protestant and Catholic killings in Ireland in our life time. So to say these killings have not taken place is denying of the truth. IMO

    September 1, 2008 at 3:31 am#103609
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Sep. 01 2008,10:09)

    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.


    Thanks, t8.

    But Jesus didn't say he was older than Abraham. He said that before Abraham was I am. Am what?

    Mandy

    September 1, 2008 at 3:38 am#103613
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Not3in1….Good question, Am what?, am alive, am mentioned, am foreordained, am predestined, am known by God, am in higher position. WHAT?

    gene

    September 1, 2008 at 3:54 am#103617
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 01 2008,15:31)

    Quote (t8 @ Sep. 01 2008,10:09)

    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.


    Thanks, t8.

    But Jesus didn't say he was older than Abraham.  He said that before Abraham was I am.  Am what?

    Mandy


    Hi not,
    I AM is a statement beyond time constraints for God.
    But for Jesus it is at least before Abraham came into being.

    September 1, 2008 at 4:52 am#103626
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Sep. 01 2008,13:56)
    episteimaniac………….Your History of Constantine is quite different then what i have read, Have you ever read the book < (When Jesus Became God) Its very Historic and shown all the accounts of things going on during the Nicene Council. It is acclaimed as very accurate from a historical point of view. And to think the Catholic and Protestant Churches were not the cause of Millions of deaths is pure denial of historical truth, even there modern Churches have admitted this guilt of there past, and even in our recent life time the killings have continued, take the Protestant and Catholic killings in Ireland in our life time. So to say these killings have not taken place is denying of the truth. IMO


    Gen You are so right, the Catholic Church killed Millions of Christians. When you go into Basement of some Churches in Germany, you will find Torture Chambers.
    Peace and Love Irene

    September 1, 2008 at 5:38 am#103631
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,15:54)
    But for Jesus it is at least before Abraham came into being.


    How do you know for sure?

    September 1, 2008 at 5:44 am#103632
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi not3,
    Should we not be?
    As you say there is no WHAT

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1,081 through 1,100 (of 25,960 total)
123…545556…1,2961,2971,298
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account