Originally posted by OldShepherd
That's TRUE. The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was identifying himself as God. Jesus simply said that before Abraham was, "I AM" which could also MEAN that before Abraham was, "I AM the anointed."
You got the meaning of the verse WRONG OldShepherd.
What Jesus MEANT was that those who are INSIDE the church (those who BELIEVED Jesus and ENTERED - John 10:9 - the fold or church) may DIE yet they will LIVE again (John 11:25).
The church that Christ built BECAME inactive soon AFTER apostle Paul died. It was replaced by the Catholic Church which TAUGHT doctrines that were NOT taught by Jesus and his apostles.It was NOT until July 27, 1914, in FULFILLMENT of prophecy, that the TRUE Church of Christ (Iglesia Ni Cristo) RE-EMERGED at a place and time ACCORDING to scripture, that TRUE doctrines of Christ were TAUGHT again.
Which do you BELIEVE OldShepherd, the BIBLE or the WRITINGS of what you call "early church Fathers?" If these "early church writings" were of any value at all, why weren't they included in the canonized Books of the Bible? After all, it was the Catholoc Church (composed of "early church Fathers") which, as you say, canonized the Bible. Have you thought about this?
Now, if you put MORE relevance to what your "early church Fathers" wrote OVER the canonized Bible, then we really DON'T have a COMMON ground, don't we? It would be like talking to a Mormon whose beliefs are based more on the Book of Mormon than on the Bible or a Jehovah's Witness whose beliefs are said to be based on the Bible but actually based on interpretations as published in their WatchTower magazine.
The Plan of Salvation is God's and the Savior is Jesus. Why one would LISTEN to people OTHER than God or Jesus is beyond me!
Ed
This is in response to an earlier post about John 8:58.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Posts on this forum argue that when Jesus said I Am, in John 8:58, he was not identifying Himself as God.
That's TRUE. The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was identifying himself as God. Jesus simply said that before Abraham was, "I AM" which could also MEAN that before Abraham was, "I AM the anointed."
Matthew 16:18 upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church that He built on the rock. Therefore, His church, and its teachings, should be visible in every generation, especially the years immediately following the apostles, i.e. 50-300 AD. There should be clear, substantial, evidence of His church in every age.
You got the meaning of the verse WRONG OldShepherd.
What Jesus MEANT was that those who are INSIDE the church (those who BELIEVED Jesus and ENTERED - John 10:9 - the fold or church) may DIE yet they will LIVE again (John 11:25).
The church that Christ built BECAME inactive soon AFTER apostle Paul died. It was replaced by the Catholic Church which TAUGHT doctrines that were NOT taught by Jesus and his apostles.It was NOT until July 27, 1914, in FULFILLMENT of prophecy, that the TRUE Church of Christ (Iglesia Ni Cristo) RE-EMERGED at a place and time ACCORDING to scripture, that TRUE doctrines of Christ were TAUGHT again.
I challenge any anti-Trinitarian, on this forum, who viciously attacks the Trinity doctrine, to search the writings of the early church fathers, and learn if any of the early Christians ever taught the anti-Trinity doctrine you believe. In the first three centuries of the church many, many hundreds of faithful Christians were tortured and horribly killed by sword, spear, and arrow, wild animals, and even burned alive, because they would not denounce Jesus and worship the man Caesar, as deity. Did any of these early saints believe that Jesus was not God, that He was merely a man? Click (Here), to link to the writings of the early church fathers.
Which do you BELIEVE OldShepherd, the BIBLE or the WRITINGS of what you call "early church Fathers?" If these "early church writings" were of any value at all, why weren't they included in the canonized Books of the Bible? After all, it was the Catholoc Church (composed of "early church Fathers") which, as you say, canonized the Bible. Have you thought about this?
Now, if you put MORE relevance to what your "early church Fathers" wrote OVER the canonized Bible, then we really DON'T have a COMMON ground, don't we? It would be like talking to a Mormon whose beliefs are based more on the Book of Mormon than on the Bible or a Jehovah's Witness whose beliefs are said to be based on the Bible but actually based on interpretations as published in their WatchTower magazine.
The Plan of Salvation is God's and the Savior is Jesus. Why one would LISTEN to people OTHER than God or Jesus is beyond me!
Ed
Upvote
0