What if God the Father came to earth?

[Katzpur]

Why think he did not say it literaly?

Probably because I believe that no one (including God) can be His own Father and His own Son. I believe that there is a Father and a Son and that they are not the same person. To me, Jesus' answer was kind of along the lines of what one identical twin would say if someone asked him, "What does your twin brother look like?" He might answer, "If you've seen me, you've seen my brother." Scripture tells us that "the Word" (i.e. Jesus Christ) was with God in the beginning. If you're with someone, there are two of you, not just one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Would you be willing to research what you say about prophecy further?

What would be the point... after 70+ years of reading and thinking, I have come to my present understanding. as I stated earlier Prophercy proves nothing.

Do you know why it's called the gospel of Matthew; of John, etc .?

Because it was thought they were the authors. We now know that we can not be sure who the authors were. Some of the writings attributed to Paul were written by him, but some we now know were not.
When the Bible was assembled it was a requirement for every book to be connected to an apostle. Some books were given attributions to meet this requirement.


Faith needs to be stronger than a simple belief that the Bible is infalliable. If it is not stronger than that, a proof of any part of the bible not being true or doubtfull, leads to loss of faith.

Read and used intelligently, the Bible is the most important source of Christian knowledge. But is never has been and never will be the only one.

For the first 300 hundred years no one had the benefit of a Bible. Thereafter and for more than 1000 years only some priest had a sight of one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If for the first 300 years no one had New Testament scripture, how do you explain that every verse of the New Testament was shared in correspondence between "church fathers" before 300 AD?

 

[nazz]

Do you think He meant that literally? In other words, was He saying that the Father is the same person as the Son? Or was He saying that if you were to see the Father, you would not be able to tell the difference between Him and the Son?

I don't think he was saying he was the Father. I think he was saying that he and the Father were identical in nature. He was the Father manifested in the flesh. That is why I feel the original question was strange. The Father did come to earth in the form of the Son.

 

[nazz]

I don't think he was saying he was the Father. I think he was saying that he and the Father were identical in nature. He was the Father manifested in the flesh. That is why I feel the original question was strange. The Father did come to earth in the form of the Son.

Just wanted to add that this is mystical language. Trying to parse it in any kind of literal way leads to confusion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If for the first 300 years no one had New Testament scripture, how do you explain that every verse of the New Testament was shared in correspondence between "church fathers" before 300 AD?

I rather doubt that there were sufficient identical copies of any work for them all to have copies. There was not a New Testament either. Nor would they have wasted resources on writing copies into their letters.

No doubt all the various pieces of scripture existed amongst an even greater number of documents, that were chosen as suitable for the various Bibles. But the fact that even today the various churches have differing selections of books in their bibles. Indicates that agreement on what to include was never universal.

Christianity does not depend on the Bible, It is the Bible that depended on the Churches coming into existence first.
If Christianity was not already up and running, there would never have been a Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think he was saying he was the Father. I think he was saying that he and the Father were identical in nature. He was the Father manifested in the flesh. That is why I feel the original question was strange. The Father did come to earth in the form of the Son.

You kind of lost me, but that's probably because I'm not a Trinitarian Christian, and have a hard time thinking in those terms.

 

[nazz]

You kind of lost me, but that's probably because I'm not a Trinitarian Christian, and have a hard time thinking in those terms.

Understood. Unitarianism is so much more simple and elegant. I went that way for a time.

I love a quote I heard somewhere: "If you think you understand the Trinity then you probably don't"

I keep trying though.

 

[nightingale.sc]

Can this be moved to Christianity DIR?

be switch to Christianity DIR is the thing of course