It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some Questions for Christians (and others)

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566



This is what the Church teaches as the Bible backs this up.


ok, show the scriptures then.


Oliveoil was simply passing on the teaching of the Church. It is the Church's job to make sure that the Bible backs up the teaching. It took the Church three hundred years of argument to establish those teachings; the most important scriptural principle involved was "Christ died to save sinners", and the argument was mainly about excluding any statements (such as the Arian statement) which would conflict with or undermine that principle. You must not expect Oliveoil to have all those arguments at her fingertips; that would be a little unfair.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
God is one because he possesses a single,divine nature,the nature of God.
Nature is what makes something what it is.When we speak of human nature we indicate what makes a man a man,with all his essential components and properties.When appling this distinction to God, we recognize the unity of nature, the unity of divinity,which belongs in an absolute and exclusive way to him who exists as God.
The one God exists as three persons who are distinct but undivided,sinse each person fully possesses the same divine nature,the nature of God. A human person is he or she who exists as a concreate human being, as an individual possessing humanity,that is human nature.

The Father generates or begets the son, the son is begotten of the father, and the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son.The father is the origin and source, the son is incarnate, and the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son as the greatest gift given to man, resulting from and carrying forward the works of the Son in his incarnation.

This is what the Church teaches as the Bible backs this up.


ok, show the scriptures then.


OK

The Father generates or begets the son, the son is begotten of the father,

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

and the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The father is the origin and source

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

the son is incarnate

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
You must not expect Oliveoil to have all those arguments at her fingertips; that would be a little unfair.


i dont, but if you are talking about doctrine, its important to understand what the bible says about something....


im slow btw because im in the middle of preparing a post. it'll be awhile



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
You get what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with it.


ok, believe it or not, im not worried about whether or not i understand. my concern is "is it scriptural"

if its scriptural but i dont understand it, i can deal with that. but if its not scriptural, then can it be said its from god?

and i think thats the point really, we can go back and forth about individual scriptures, but in the end, in the big picture, is it scriptural?

what i did was i took the athanasian creed and i disected it. i took out some points that were redundent (creeds tended to do that) and i tried to separate it point by point. then i took the point and i marked it one of several ways, either i gave the scripture that supported the point, or i marked it "no scripture" if the point is unsupported. in some case, i even noted if there were scriptures that argue against the point.

why is this important, well think about this, the church is essentially saying that God will condemn people who dont believe this creed. if this is THAT important, then we NEED to know that this is was God wants us to believe, no?

2 tim 3:[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

the bible is integral to our worship to god.

so is the trinity scriptural?

- we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
- one God (deut 4:39)
- in trinity (no scripture)

- Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
- confounding (no scripture)
- dividing (luke 18:19; john 14:28; acts 3:13; john 5:19; luke 22:42; 1 Cor 11:3; john 7:16)

- For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
- father (isaiah 46:9,10)
- son (heb 5:5)
- holy spirit (no scripture (while sometimes inanimate things can be described as people, people are NEVER decribed as inanimate objects. sinced holy spirit is described as "poured" and "fills", coupled with that fact we are never given a name, it can hardly be a person)

- But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
- the three are one (no scripture)
- equal glory (no scripture)
- co eternal (no scripture)

- The Father uncreated
- (psalm 90:2 (and others)

- the Son uncreated
- no scripture (2 scriptures oppose this)

- the Holy Spirit uncreated.
- no scripture to agree or disagree.

- The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
- no scripture (1 scripture to oppose)

- the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
- no scripture

- The Father eternal
- isaiah 57:15

- the Son eternal
- no scripture

- the Holy Spirit eternal.
- no scripture

- And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
- no scripture

- As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
- no scripture

- the Father is almighty
- (exodus 6:3; gen 35:11; rev 4:8)

- the Son almighty
- no scripture

- the Holy Spirit almighty.
- no scripture (but logical)

- And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
-no scripture

- So the Father is God
- many... many scripture)

- the Son is God
- god (no scripture)
- a god (john 1:1)
- mighty god (isa 9:6)

- the Holy Spirit is God;
- no scripture

- And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
- no scripture

- So likewise the Father is Lord
- gen 15:2; duet 10:17 (scriptures that say 'LORD' dont count since it is a place marker for "Jehovah")

- the Son Lord
- matt 7:22

- the Holy Spirit Lord
- no scripture

- And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
- no scripture

- For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
- one person (no scripture)

- So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
- deut 4:39

- The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
- isa 57:15

- The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
- lol, he's not created, but he was created..
- uncreated (no scripture)
- begotten (created) - (john 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 john 4:9)

- The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
- no scripture (but logical)

- And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
- no scripture (several scriptures oppose)

- But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
- no scripture (several scriptures oppose)

- So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
- no scripture

- He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
- no scripture

- Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- 1 john 4:2

- For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
- no scripture

- Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
- no scripture (also conflicts with creed itself "none is greater or less than another")

- Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
- no scripture

- One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
- no scripture

- One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
- no scripture (1 scripture to oppose)

- For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
- no scripture

- Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
- acts 2:31,32

- He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
- acts 2:34

From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
- john 5:22; john 11:25

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
- john 5:29

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
- no scripture

-----------------------------------------------------

notice a pattern?

the creed is absolutely stuffed with statements that are not supported by scripture. assumptions that the church expects christians to follow or else they lose thier salvation.

does that make sense?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Miriam, Just who do You think Jesus is?And is their any scripture to support your view?


jesus was created - col 1:15; rev 3:14 ("firstborn of all creation", "the beginning of the creation of God")

jesus is God's son - matt 3:17 ("this is my beloved son")

jesus had a prehuman existence as a spirit creature - (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58; John 1:1, 2; ) this point is obvious if he is the "firstborn"

jesus is a servant of God - (1 cor 11:3; 1 cor 15:28; matt 12:18; john 12:49: 15:10)

jesus received his power from God - (matt 9:8; acts 2:22; acts 10:38)

jesus was sent to do his fathers will, not his - (Luke 22:42; John 5:30; John 6:38)

jesus was taught by god - (john 8:28)

jesus called the father "his God" - (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Rev. 3:12)

jesus is appointed king - (john 18:37)


[edit on 23-4-2010 by miriam0566]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


The short answer to your challenge is that the Athanasian Creed is like the roof of your house. The roof of your house does not rest on the ground. Your walls rest on the ground, and the roof then rests on the walls.

Similarly, nobody is pretending that the Creed rests directly on scripture, directly, point by point. It doesn't need to, as long as scripture is the base of the reasoning which leads up to it.

Your challenge is the equivalent of demanding to know exactly where the roof is touching the ground. The only way I can answer that question is to show you the walls, brick by brick.

But the first brick, I must warn you, is the Divinity of Christ, because the rest of the structure is there to protect that brick. And that "protection" process was always based on the belief that undermining the Divinity of Christ would kill off the doctrine of the Atonement. As I said in an earlier post, "Christ died for our sins" is the real scriptural foundation of the whole thing.

If you know Church history, then you will know that it took three hundred years or so to reach the structure implied by the Athanasian Creed. I'm willing to take you through the process, if that's what you want, all the way up to the Chalcedonian Definition; but it must be done in the logical order, which will be more-or-less the chronological order. And it won't be quick.

The first stage will be tomorrow morning. The first brick in the wall is the Divinity of Christ; once we've sorted out that point, we can then work towards establishing why the rest of the creed is needed to protect it.





[edit on 23-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Lets stop here and take this step by step
You said,


jesus was created - col 1:15; rev 3:14 ("firstborn of all creation", "the beginning of the creation of God")


Answer:

The Greek word for "first created"is the word Protoktioti.If Paul wanted to say Christ was the first created being he would have used this word but he did not.He uses another term Prototokos. Paul is referring to the Jewish use of the word first-born which not only means first one born but is also used as a title of sovereignty and pre-eminence. Here is an example: Psalm 89:27 God says of David" I also make him my first born, the highest of kings of the earth. Is David the first born son of Jesse? NO. He is the eighth. How is it that David be the first born? The OT use of the word means he is the first born in that he is pre-eminent or sovereign of all the kings of the earth.Now if you fit that term into the context of Col 1:15 it fits perfectly. Now take a look at verse 18.Paul is clearly talking about the pre-eminence of Christ. He is also the head of the body and first-born for the purpose That in everything he might be pre-eminent. If you replace first-born in verse 18 with the term pre-eminent, it would fit perfectly in context.However if you replaced it with first created it would not fit.

So by knowing this its erroneous to say that Jesus was created.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
The short answer to your challenge is that the Athanasian Creed is like the roof of your house. The roof of your house does not rest on the ground. Your walls rest on the ground, and the roof then rests on the walls.


i understand what you are saying but what i see is a roof that is floating in the air.

there is no scripture to even suggest a majority of the things listed in the creed.

even if the ideas are derived from other doctrines and truths, what right does the church have to declare things with such certainty when there is no scriptural backing.


Similarly, nobody is pretending that the Creed rests directly on scripture, directly, point by point. It doesn't need to, as long as scripture is the base of the reasoning which leads up to it.


but its not. the trinity was concocted from thin air.


The only way I can answer that question is to show you the walls, brick by brick.


i agree


But the first brick, I must warn you, is the Divinity of Christ, because the rest of the structure is there to protect that brick. And that "protection" process was always based on the belief that undermining the Divinity of Christ would kill off the doctrine of the Atonement. As I said in an earlier post, "Christ died for our sins" is the real scriptural foundation of the whole thing.


christ "dying for our sins" is not in any way dependent on the the idea that jesus is god.

jesus does not have to be god in order to die for our since, in fact jesus CANT be God if he is to die for our sins.

that being said, see my reply to oliveoil. i provide enough scriptural proof to safely say that jesus is NOT God.


If you know Church history, then you will know that it took three hundred years or so to reach the structure implied by the Athanasian Creed. I'm willing to take you through the process, if that's what you want, all the way up to the Chalcedonian Definition; but it must be done in the logical order, which will be more-or-less the chronological order. And it won't be quick.


thats one way of looking at it.

another is that it took 300+ years for this false doctrine to get itself into the church.

i think the fact that the apostles didn't teach or talk about the trinity is pretty damning for the doctrine.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Now take a look at verse 18.Paul is clearly talking about the pre-eminence of Christ. He is also the head of the body and first-born for the purpose That in everything he might be pre-eminent. If you replace first-born in verse 18 with the term pre-eminent, it would fit perfectly in context.However if you replaced it with first created it would not fit.


"the firstborn of all creation." not "over"

jesus is part of the class "created"

even if col 1:15 is talking about eminence, its still classifying jesus as created.

i knew you were going to bring up this rebuttal, so i also quoted rev 3:14 which cannot be interpreted the same way



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Jesus was not created but begotten

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Revelation 3:14 you are taking out of context.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



jesus is part of the class "created"


Colossians 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:

I think this verse clearly states who is creator.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Jesus was not created but begotten

Revelation 3:14 you are taking out of context.


to beget - 1 : to procreate as the father
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
www.merriam-webster.com...


jesus cannot be begotten if he is eternal and uncreated

1 john 4:9 shows that jesus was begotten before he can to earth.

im not taking it out of context. its in black and white.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Jesus was not created but begotten

Revelation 3:14 you are taking out of context.


to beget - 1 : to procreate as the father
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
www.merriam-webster.com...


jesus cannot be begotten if he is eternal and uncreated

1 john 4:9 shows that jesus was begotten before he can to earth.

im not taking it out of context. its in black and white.


Iv just answered you with scripture saying that Jesus was begotten.

You are answering your own questions, and we are also giving you the answers.Please help yourself and learn the distinction between person and nature.
Now back to Col 1:16....Would love to hear you explain that.



[edit on 23-4-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Iv just answered you with scripture saying that Jesus was begotten.


and i gave you the definition of begotten, showing you that you are killing your own case.

begotten means that jesus had a beginning.

God begot Jesus.

this means jesus is not eternal and therefore cannot be god.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Iv just answered you with scripture saying that Jesus was begotten.


and i gave you the definition of begotten, showing you that you are killing your own case.

begotten means that jesus had a beginning.

God begot Jesus.

this means jesus is not eternal and therefore cannot be god.


Wasn't Arius' claim put to rest many moons ago? The Bible contests to Jesus being eternal. PROF.... COL1:16 Jn 1:3 Heb 1:2
The natural question was is if the Son was born or begotten there must have been a time when he did not exist.
the answer found in scripture was, There was never a time when he (the word) did not exist. Jesus was begotten eternally.
Now answer my question about Col 1:16
I dont think you can.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


So there are two things I promised myself to do on this thread this morning.
The first relates to the translations of the Greek texts in John ch8 and Philppians ch2. You were claiming that my understanding of them was based on the literal English. I offered to track down some Greek commentators, on the basis that Greeks could be expected to understand their own language. I also challenged you on whether you would accept the verdict of Greek commentators, but you took no notice of that. Anyway, this begins my part of the bargain.

My first source is John Chrysostom. These are taken from sermons rather than commentaries, but his understanding of the text is obvious enough from the way he treats it. I am finding all these texts on newadvent.org/fathers.

Chrysostom, Homilies on John; relating to John ch8 v58
-----
"He saw my day and was glad". He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at him, so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without enquiry.
But wherefore said he not "Before Abraham was" instead of "I am"? As the Father uses this expression "I Am", so also does Christfor it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous.
------

This is, I would remind you, the interpretation of a Greek-speaking person, which presumably removes any suggestion that he did not understand the language.
Obviously Augustine is not Greek, but I think it's fair to quote him as
a contemporary supporting view.

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John; the same passage
------
And the Lord; Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am. Weigh the words and get a knowledge of the mystery. "Before Abraham was made". Understand, "that was made" refers to human formation; but "Am" to the divine essence. "He was made" because Abraham was a creature. He did not say "Before Abraham was, I was" bt "Before Abraham was made- who was not made save by me- I am". Nor did he say "Before Abraham was made I was made"... Before Abraham was made, I am. Recognise the Creator- distinguish the creature
------

Finally, back to Chrysostom on the subject of Philippians.
This man understands the disputed word as "stolen property", which is actually on your side of the argument about the exact translation. Score one point to you. On the other hand, he then uses this translation to demonstrate the divinity of Christ, so he comes down on my side of the argument on the point that matters.
In brief, his argument is;
"Jesus did not treat equality with God as stolen property
This is because he was already the rightful owner of equality with God."

But of course I must give you the argument in his own words.

Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians; relating to ch2v6
--------
[Paul] says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the father, who was equal to him, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God. Now learn what this means. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, lest it perish and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of that sort will happen to him... If a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down he straightway loses it...Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine...

What does one say, then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from his right, for he thought not deity a prize seized. he was not afraid that any would strip him of that nature or that right. Wherefore he laid it aside, being confident that he would take it up again... For this cause, Paul says not "He seized not" but "He counted it not a prize". he possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe... He did not refuse to lay it aside as one who had usurped it, but since he had it as his own by nature, since it could never be parted from him, he hid it.
-------

Finally, I remind you once again that the divinity of Christ is thus demonstrated from the Greek text of the NT by a Greek speaking person. He knows his own language.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


I also promised you that I would say something about the way we would progress in developing the Athanasian Creed from scripture.

It won't be possible to get very far before we have established the divinity of Christ, which is the first essential building block.

We could then move on to considering the Docetic heresy, which involved the belief that the physical body of Jesus was not real, but just an appearance, an image.
We would also have to consider the Patripassian heresy, which involved believing that the Father died on the cross.

In order to deal with these, we would have to eatablish the point that Jesus was genuinely human. I think you would have no problem with that. Once we have got the scriptural basis for "Jesus is God" and combine that with the scriptural basis for "Jesus is man", we would then have the scriptural basis for the line in the Athanasian Creed which says "Jesus is God and man". That is what I mean by building it up logically, step by step.

It would also be necessary to establish that Jesus is not the Father (in order to sort out the Patripassians). Again, I think you would have no problem with that. However, let me point out that the statement that "The Son is not the Father" is the meaning of, or one of the meanings of, the Credal statement that "the persons must not be confounded". If you accept that there is a scriptural basis for "The Son is not the Father", we have then established that there is a scriptural basis for the line in the Creed which says that "the persons must not be confounded". That is what I mean by building it up logically, step by step.

The next stage would be to establish that the Spirit is God. You have already conceded that the Spirit is "part of God", and that will do for the moment.

We would then have the four basic building blocks of Trinitarian theology, viz;
The Father is God
The Spirit is God
Christ is God
Christ is Man

This is the first line of "bricks" in the wall.
The rest of the wall is about the exact relationship between those elements, but there is no point in getting on to that until we have established the four elements themseves. We must press on with resolving the question about the divinity of Christ.

I don't think I will be on this thread again this weekend, because there will be a new Revelation thread to look after. If you have any thoughts to contribute up there on the 4 Horsemen of Revelation ch6, I will be pleased to hear them



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Wasn't Arius' claim put to rest many moons ago?


no, they lost the political battle and afterword they were called heretics


The Bible contests to Jesus being eternal. PROF.... COL1:16 Jn 1:3 Heb 1:2


none of these scriptures say jesus is eternal.

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:

no mention of him being eternal. i does say that jesus had a significant role in creation. but would this verse be invalid if jesus was created bfore creation?

john 1:[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

nothing about him being eternal here either. only that he had a part in creation

heb 1:[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

again creation. not eternal.

what you have proven to me is that jesus helped to create all things. not that jesus is eternal


The natural question was is if the Son was born or begotten there must have been a time when he did not exist.
the answer found in scripture was, There was never a time when he (the word) did not exist. Jesus was begotten eternally.
Now answer my question about Col 1:16
I dont think you can.


co 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:
[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
[18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
[19] For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

does this prove that jesus doesnt have a beginning. no.

john 3:[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

its not just begotten. its "only begotten"

jesus is the only direct creation of God.

jesuswas created.

when?

jhn 1:[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"in the beginning" is commonly aceepted amoung scholars as the beginning of the creation of our universe.

jesus was created before all other things, because we can see that when other things were created, jesus was with god.

does this mean that jesus deserves the credit for creation? no. jesus was God's "craftsman"

proof? proverbs 8 (which is accepted amoung scholars to be depicting jesus

22“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. 24When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; 25before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world. 27I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, 31rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

yes jesus had created, but it was the same as a builder using someone else's blueprints. while jesus was the builder, God was the arquitecht.

the scriptures you quoted show us just how old jesus is, but none show jesus to not have a beginning.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


im sorry, i keep on skipping you. i started with oliveoil's post because i thought it would be shorter, but i ran out of time and have to head out.

im sorry, i will get to your posts as soon as i can



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

jesus cannot be begotten if he is eternal and uncreated



Yes, he can be, if the "begetting" is happening eternally, without any reference to time, which is what the church teaches about the relation between the divine Father and the divine Son.

(The birth of Jesus to Mary is a different matter)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join