Search results

If Jesus is a man, then there was definitely a time when he did not exist. Adam was the first man, not Jesus.

Jesus was both man and God. As such He did not exist. As God, He did, but that was before He was Jesus. To say, "Jesus existed from all eternity," has two possible meanings. If you pick one, and your debate opponent picks the other, you might both be right...until you say the other guy is wrong...

Jesus was both man and God. As such He did not exist. As God, He did, but that was before He was Jesus. To say, "Jesus existed from all eternity," has two possible meanings. If you pick one, and your debate opponent picks the other, you might both be right...until you say the other guy is wrong...

Ok. Josiah was called Josiah before he was born, too. But neither of them existed before then. Jesus did not exist as a man before He was conceived in Mary. Why is this controversial?

It's pretty funny that in the post where you accuse me of heresy, you make the exact same points I made. "His fleshy body did not exist prior to the Holy Spirit moving on Mary. He wasn't called Jesus prior to him being 8 days old." You would call me a heretic for that?

That man-child did not exist at one time. Are you saying Jesus the man existed before He was conceived?

I'll let him refute himself, though I dont remember if it was in ch 1-4. Do it here, or that thread you mentioned you would start?

I have read Bob's book. That's where I got the idea you have to read the Bible with one eye closed to come to these conclusions.

As did the other disciples, eventually, though calling it a "Gentile dispensation" confuses the matter. The biggest issue I have is that it divides believers into opposing camps for no biblical reason. ...And that it offers another gospel, which Paul said was to accurse those who did it.

So much for doing a reply in the middle of the night.

When did it change from the good heterodoxy to the bad heresy? Not true. I believe the spirit continues to exist after resurrection. Are you sure Luke meant a human's spirit there, and not a familiar or demonic spirit? None of which speaks against my proposal. No. You tell me. Not true...

Capital W "word" is a interpretation, since the original Greek didn't have capitals. I like the KJV, but there are other good translations, some better than others.

"The Word" may not be a name.

Probably--I'm not real fond of labels. But I disagree with the local MADs on some things, like cessation of water baptism.

What he's trying to say is that Jesus was the name given to the man-child born of Mary. We don't know if His name was Jesus before that.

To believe that water baptism for new christians was halted in the scriptures.

You have to study it with one eye closed to believe that.

Not to mention the original Greek, right?

Yes, inside the church, but not the world or angels now.

I normally would, but it was a straight quote from a website.