WHO WAS the first to Christ was God? ( Archived) (42)

May 13, 2011 10:29 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
sasyecats
sasyecatssasyecatsCarroll, Iowa USA15 Threads 3 Polls 1,263 Posts
confused
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 16, 2011 7:42 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
revealer24
revealer24revealer24Arundel, Queensland Australia62 Threads 985 Posts
Can you rephrase it? I do not understand the question.
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 16, 2011 7:44 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
blarneykite
blarneykiteblarneykiteSomewhere, Carlow Ireland31 Threads 3,901 Posts
revealer24: Can you rephrase it? I do not understand the question.
It's all Pedro's faultrolling on the floor laughing
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 16, 2011 7:47 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
How come I'm showing pedro as the thread author?
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 16, 2011 7:50 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
reb56
reb56reb56carthage, Missouri USA55 Polls 8,629 Posts
always been father/god son &holy ghost.
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 17, 2011 12:01 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
revealer24
revealer24revealer24Arundel, Queensland Australia62 Threads 985 Posts
blarneykite: It's all Pedro's fault


I wish I understood the question...
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 7:13 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
Kestutis234
Kestutis234Kestutis234Kings Lynn, Norfolk, England UK15 Posts
Well from what I understand, BEFORE anything else existed there was ALWAYS God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Ghost. These three
eternally existing persons work together as One GodHead.

The Son of God Jesus Christ worships The Father, and said to His disciples;

John 20:16-18 (Amplified Bible)

16 Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around she said to Him in Hebrew, Rabboni! -- which means Teacher or Master.

17 Jesus said to her, Do not cling to Me [do not hold Me], for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to My brethren and tell them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.

18 Away came Mary Magdalene, bringing the disciples news (word) that she had seen the Lord and that He had said these things to her.

Here is a very infomative true account of what Heaven is like. I always compare third party revelation with the Holy Bible, to make sure other peoples revelations do not contradict the written word of God.



HTH :)
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 7:19 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
ausguy1
ausguy1ausguy1country, Victoria Australia20 Posts
My theology is not that good but I think the trilogy was formalised by the vatican council ? about 600 years after christ's death so what cam first ?? the chicken or the egg
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 8:44 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
Kestutis234
Kestutis234Kestutis234Kings Lynn, Norfolk, England UK15 Posts
Right ausguy1. The term 'Holy Trinity' does not appear in the Bible as such. I think it's just a name that was coined by the church to refer to the GodHead. Not sure if it was Rome or the C of E that first came up with that term.

Regarding the chicken and egg syndrome - Well from my understanding it was the chicken, created by God to lay the eggs to produce more chickens! The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.

Even Darwin himself admitted there were serious flaws in his theory that could not be proved scientifically. confused

I even seem to remember reading that Darwin on his death bed actually became a Christian. Can anyone here confirm that please?
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 9:33 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
godeas69
godeas69godeas69dublin, Dublin Ireland1 Threads 309 Posts
The theory of evolution was ressurected between 1920s to 60s when scientists began conducting experiments on DNA and genes etc of which Darwin knew nothing. However the theory is flawed and I have read many scientists who dismiss it and could post mant arguments against it if i needed to. As far as the original post is concerned I think it was the three wise men who had an inkling of the newborn christ.
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 9:49 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
Ladefoss23
Ladefoss23Ladefoss23Langen, Hessen Germany79 Threads 26 Polls 1,898 Posts
very intelligent and informative thread OP, thank youbouquet
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 9:52 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
Ladefoss23: people are entitled to their religous beliefs, even if they are contrary to yours.
troll troll troll redclown tinfoil hat crazy
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 9:53 AM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
Ladefoss23
Ladefoss23Ladefoss23Langen, Hessen Germany79 Threads 26 Polls 1,898 Posts
ausguy1: My theology is not that good but I think the trilogy was formalised by the vatican council ? about 600 years after christ's death so what cam first ?? the chicken or the egg


yes I agree with youpeace
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 2:13 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
theoldestdear
theoldestdeartheoldestdearReading, Berkshire, England UK2 Threads 507 Posts
godeas69: The theory of evolution was ressurected between 1920s to 60s when scientists began conducting experiments on DNA and genes etc of which Darwin knew nothing. However the theory is flawed and I have read many scientists who dismiss it and could post mant arguments against it if i needed to. As far as the original post is concerned I think it was the three wise men who had an inkling of the newborn christ.


Whilst it is off the thread not that i fully understand the question


1 I would like to know how you believe the theory of
evolution is flawed -

2 How many of these Scientists that dismiss this theory
belong to the Discovery Institute?
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 2:21 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
theoldestdear
theoldestdeartheoldestdearReading, Berkshire, England UK2 Threads 507 Posts
Kestutis234: Right ausguy1. The term 'Holy Trinity' does not appear in the Bible as such. I think it's just a name that was coined by the church to refer to the GodHead. Not sure if it was Rome or the C of E that first came up with that term.

Regarding the chicken and egg syndrome - Well from my understanding it was the chicken, created by God to lay the eggs to produce more chickens! The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
Even Darwin himself admitted there were serious flaws in his theory that could not be proved scientifically.

I even seem to remember reading that Darwin on his death bed actually became a Christian. Can anyone here confirm that please?



The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).

In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

• Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
• Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
• Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
• Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).


3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.


4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, those that claim this would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 3:21 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
godeas69
godeas69godeas69dublin, Dublin Ireland1 Threads 309 Posts
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

Finally I have no idea what the discovery institute is but it's like asking me how many top footballers play for west ham? Don't know they're busy at Barcelona.
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 3:28 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
theoldestdear
theoldestdeartheoldestdearReading, Berkshire, England UK2 Threads 507 Posts
godeas69: Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.


It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.


2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at ) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 3:34 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
theoldestdear
theoldestdeartheoldestdearReading, Berkshire, England UK2 Threads 507 Posts
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.


quote]

------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 3:35 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
godeas69
godeas69godeas69dublin, Dublin Ireland1 Threads 309 Posts
Yeah mate this was all done in a lab in a controlled environment with an intelligent creator in a lab suit conducting these experiments. It didn't happen by chance,
------ This thread is Archived ------
May 29, 2011 3:39 PM CST WHO WAS the first to Christ was God?
godeas69
godeas69godeas69dublin, Dublin Ireland1 Threads 309 Posts
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Post Comment - Post a comment on this Forum Thread

This Thread is Archived

This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.

« Go back to All Threads
Message #318

Stats for this Thread

1,893 Views
41 Comments
by sasyecats (15 Threads)
Created: May 2011
Last Viewed: May 12
Last Commented: May 2011

Share this Thread

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here