29 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladar1. Yes Jesus was in existence from the beginning. See John 1.
Question 1...
Was Jesus in existence in the Old Testament?
Question 2...
If he was in existemce, where was he?
Question 3...
If he was in existence, what was his opinion of God the Father's instructions to Israel?
2. Jesus was with God the Father
3. Jesus was in total agreement with all of what God instructed Israel to do.
29 Dec 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterCare to answer the op?
According to all you eternal suffering believers Jesus will also be in hell overseeing the eternal burning. Nice.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29598
29 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladarWhy bother, you answered it yourself after 3 minutes.
Care to answer the op?
29 Dec 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSo you agree? I was wondering which people who claim to be Christian disagree.
Why bother, you answered it yourself after 3 minutes.
Suzi seems to believe the God of the OT is evil, but Jesus has replaced that old bad guy so now Christians are good.
29 Dec 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterI heard that theory.
There is only one entity in god so yes Jesus was “in” the Old Testament. Probably physically present in the the form of Melchezideck.
30 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladarConsidering the whole piece of crap is bullshyte the answer would be no, since he also did not die on the cross nor cross over to heaven but instead was cut down early by bribing the guards and he recovered knowing he would be really killed if he didn't cut out of town and disappeared up the silk road, founding monasteries along the way dying in Kashmire.
Question 1...
Was Jesus in existence in the Old Testament?
Question 2...
If he was in existence, where was he?
Question 3...
If he was in existence, what was his opinion of God the Father's instructions to Israel?
30 Dec 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseDo you think that delivering your sonhousian pièce de résistance of it’s all bullshyte anyway is really as necessesary as how often you do it? We all know that you think “it’s bullshyte” and if you engage in the content without delivering it as a prefix to whatever you are going to add, we won’t think you’ve caved in and become a monk!
Considering the whole piece of crap is bullshyte the answer would be no...
Originally posted by @divegeesterIt's his way of crapping on his father's grave.
Do you think that delivering your sonhousian pièce de résistance of it’s all bullshyte anyway is really as necessesary as how often you do it? We all know that you think “it’s bullshyte” and if you engage in the content without delivering it as a prefix to whatever you are going to add, we won’t think you’ve caved in and become a monk!
Originally posted by @eladarThis odious notion is something you are projecting onto him. It is, of course - as you well know - not "his way of crapping on his father's grave" because - as you well know - he doesn't have the same superstitious beliefs as you.
It's his way of crapping on his father's grave.
30 Dec 17
Originally posted by @fmfDo you know the background that I know?
This odious notion is something you are projecting onto him. It is, of course - as you well know - not "his way of crapping on his father's grave" because - as you well know - he doesn't have the same superstitious beliefs as you.
Originally posted by @eladarYou have missed my point. This poisonous idea that he is "crapping on his father's grave" is merely a ghastly gob of spittal - nothing more and nothing less - that you are flobbing into his face on account of your repulsive Jesus-is-flowing-out-of-you internet persona.
Do you know the background that I know?